Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Steel Production

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Technology what is his estimate of the total cost and volume of steel orders placed abroad by the British Steel Corporation to offset their own shortfall of production this year.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology how much steel ouput has been lost because of industrial disputes so far this year, and with what effect on the British Steel Corporation's financial estimates.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on steel production during the 12 months ended on the latest convenient date, compared with the two preceding years; what contribution the nationalised steel industry is making to the Government policy of imports substitution; and why steel imports are rising.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. HaroldLever): Crude steel production in the United Kingdom in the year ending 30th September, 1969, was 26·6 million tons, compared with 25·1 million and 23·5 million respectively in the two previous years. B.S.C. put total losses of production this calendar year at about a million tons of crude steel, of which about 750,000 tons resulted from industrial disputes; these losses through industrial disputes are estimated to be equivalent to £40 million in turnover and perhaps £12 million in reduced profit. In order to meet rising demands from United Kingdom

consumers and to minimise the reduction of exports they expect to import this calendar year about 860,000 product tons at a cost of some £37 million.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but is he not thoroughly disappointed by the inability of the British Steel Corporation to meet the production required by its own customers? Does he not realise that, unless its performance improves, we may well lose valuable export orders which have come to Britain in the past?

Mr. Lever: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair and recognise that there has been a steady and substantial increase in production, although most unhappily last year we lost 1 million tons in the manner I have described.

Mr. Lane: Bearing in mind the excellent record of industrial relations in the steel industry in the days of private enterprise, what steps are being taken to reverse the recent deterioration?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is implying too much from my reply in taking it to mean that there has been a change in the excellent industrial relations in the steel industry. The answer is that its relations are normally excellent and I am very hopeful that they will continue to be excellent but there can be occasional moments of emotional stress where difficulties arise.

Sir G. Nabarro: But industrial disputes apart, does not the answer mean that exports will continue to fall and imports will continue to rise, all of which must be anathema to the Government policy of import substitution? When will the Government support their own policy in the context of the steel industry?

Mr. Lever: It is well to bear in mind that the increased imports of steel and the slight reduction in exports derive from the very considerable increase in the use of steel in total—that is to say, we have sacrificed some of our exports to meet the urgent needs of the home trade and there is a world boom at the moment in steel consumption.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the British Steel Corporation is doing precisely what other steel-producing countries are doing.
with the single exception of Japan since the Japanese steelmakers had the foresight, which has been lacking among British steelmakers, to produce sufficient capacity to meet future demands?

Mr. Lever: It is well to take my hon. Friend's adult view that what happens today is not the result only of what has been done yesterday, but is the product of what has happened several years earlier. One must be fair and recognise that over a period of years there has been a certain general background disturbance in the steel industry politically.

Sir J. Eden: Does not the world boom make it all the more disappointing that British steel is not in a position to meet demands for exports? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gap should be closed by improving productivity and deliveries rather than by trying to raise prices at home?

Mr. Lever: On the latter part of the question, the British steel industry is fully competitive in price with its European competitors and we will raise prices only so far as it is justified. Of course, we are anxious to increase productivity and over-all production to meet the boom, but the British experience is by no means unique.

Coal Production

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology, in view of the decision to build Drax B, what revision he has made of his estimate of total coal production and the number of jobs in the coal industry.

Mr. Harold Lever: Drax B should burn about 3½ million tons a year and provide about 5,000 mining jobs in the later 1970s.

Mr. Osborn: May we have an assurance that the C.E.G.B. still wishes to go ahead, in view of the fact that the cost of coal is likely to rise considerably above the figures in the first estimates? When is construction likely to start, and when will the power stations be in production?

Mr. Lever: Certainly the C.E.G.B. is intent on going ahead. All the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned were taken fully into account before reaching the decision to put Drax firmly

into our power programme. As for the date of commissioning the second part of Drax, the work should start in the next two or three years, according to the electricity demand at the time, and we expect it to be fully commissioned by about 1978.

Mr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are serious doubts about the coal supply position four years from now? Has that been taken into account in terms of Drax B?

Mr. Lever: I entertain no doubts that there will be satisfactory supplies of suitable coals to Drax when it is commissioned. This has all been taken fully into account.

Mr. David Price: In all comparative fuel costings, including Drax, how far does the right hon. Gentleman and his Treasury friends allow the C.E.G.B. to take into account the phenomenon called inflation?

Mr. Lever: My right hon. Friends at the Treasury and all other Ministers have to take this into account, willy nilly. It is always taken into account, as far as it can be foreseen, in our calculations.

Continental Shelf (Resources)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he proposes to take to preserve confidentiality between the oil companies and their partners on information obtained of the resources of the Continental Shelf.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is entirely a matter for the companies themselves.

Mr. Osborn: Lack of confidentiality between oil companies will be of concern to them and could restrict applications in the future. Is there not a problem, because different oil companies will be sharing projects with different nationalised industries under the new arrangements? Will not the partnerships raise difficulties in terms of preserving confidentiality?

Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman means that there will be information passed to my Department as a result of this, all the nationalised industries have this information, and we get it in any case. Quite apart from the fact that the partner in the exploration is a nationalised


industry, we get the information. We treat the information as highly confidential, even when only two oil companies are in partnership. We do precisely the same in the case of an oil company and a nationalised industry. No one need entertain any fear on that score.

Power Stations (Construction)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology on how many power stations, and in which locations, he expects construction will begin in each of the years 1970 to 1974.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The forward requirement for power stations is determined from year to year, largely in the light of load forecasts. I cannot therefore say how many stations will need to be started in the period to 1974 or where they will be; but as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General announced on 29th October, the Government has approved the C.E.G.B.'s programme for the next four stations at Heysham, Isle of Grain, Sizewell and Drax — [Vol. 790, c. 295–306.]

Mr. Lane: Can the Minister say roughly what he expects to be the average construction period of these next four stations, and what steps the Government are taking to reduce the period to a minimum, in view of past experience?

Mr. Benn: That is a different question about the problem of commissioning power stations in the programme as approved. I cannot go beyond what I have said in confirming that the four stations have been approved and that in general we are trying to encourage the speedy completion of power stations.

British Industrial Truck Association

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the refusal of members of the British Industrial Truck Association to give certain information to his Department.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Ernest A. Davies): There was no outright refusal by members of the British Industrial Truck Association to provide information to the Department, and a number of them co-operated very fully. The Association was, however, opposed to a comprehensive

survey of the industry that our officials proposed.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my hon. Friend accept that this non-co-operation by the association is a very poor example of how industry should co-operate with the Government to the advantage of both?

Dr. Davies: The Department is very disappointed at the outcome of this matter. However, in many other areas there is a great deal of collaboration with member firms of the association, and it works very well as a general rule.

Sir K. Joseph: Is not this partial reluctance by an industry a note of warning to the Government to get their inquiry mania under control and return to the basic incentives of competition and tax reform?

Dr. Davies: I could not accept the suggestion that there is a mania of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman describes. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend, generally there is a good collaborative atmosphere between B.I.T.A. and the Minstry.

Concorde Project

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology what increases he estimates will result in the cost of the Concorde project, following the French devaluation.

Mr. Benn: The effect of the devaluation of the franc is to reduce the cost of Concorde when this is expressed in terms of sterling. But there have been some adjustments to the programme which are likely to offset this decrease. I will inform the House of the revised estimate as soon as practicable.

Mr. Sheldon: Can my right hon. Friend say how much money has been authorised for production expenditure on Concorde?

Mr. Benn: There is a further Question on the Order Paper about the production programme for Concorde. We have had to strike a balance between maintaining the impetus of the programme and not committing more money than could be justified until we had a greater assurance of the market.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating the progress on the Concorde prototypes, may I ask the Minister to consider publishing a White Paper or some other form


of document showing a budget forecast on all the information that he has so that British taxpayers will know where they stand in the future?

Mr. Benn: I will consider that point. In view of the comments of the P.A.C., as hon. Members know, I have expressed my readiness to give further information about variations in the estimate. I am meeting the French Minister in London on 18th December, and it is my intention to make a statement thereafter.

Mr. Corfield: In making his further statement, will the Minister bear in mind that it is necessary to distinguish between costs which are escalating and costs which are rising because of the ability to "stretch" the aircraft?

Mr. Benn: The term "escalation" has been used too loosely, I agree. Sometimes when technical problems arise and delay progress, they amount to escalation. It is right to differentiate between the two causes.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Technology whether he proposes to write-off research costs before calculating whether Concorde is likely to be a commercial success.

Mr. Benn: We hope to recover some part of the research and development costs.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some expert opinion puts the cost of research on this project at about £1,250 million? Is it not impossible for Concorde to be a commercial success if that is taken into account? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that sum he intends to take into account?

Mr. Benn: The reason it is difficult to forecast is that it inevitably depends on the number of sales of Concorde able to be achieved. When one is looking at the commercial prospects of a project of this kind, one is balancing the changing development costs on the one hand, with, at the moment, the inevitably uncertain market on the other, but there is no doubt that on current estimates the proportion of research and development costs which we had hoped to recover is lower than some time ago.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Concorde is maintaining its lead over the American S.S.T. programme, as this is essential to the prospects of there being a return on some of the money expended by the British and French Governments?

Mr. Benn: The best estimate that we have is that the Concorde is still five years ahead of the American Boeing 2707, and this bears on the market prospects for the aircraft.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to be in a position to authorise full-scale production of the Concorde aircraft.

Mr. Benn: The manufacture of the first three production aircraft, which are required for the flight test programme, is well under way. The British and French Governments have now agreed to the next stage of the production programme, which includes work on aircraft 4–6.

Mr. Corfield: Can the Minister give any indication when he expects that, assuming all continues to go well, flight trials will have reached the stage at which it will be appropriate to authorise a further batch of production aircraft?

Mr. Benn: This is dependent on the success of the tests, which are going very well, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Tests will be continuing next year, and we shall be reviewing authorisations for production in the light of the situation as it emerges from time to time. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Ginsburg: Can my right hon. Friend give the House some idea of what the total research and development and pre-production costs will be before the Government are in a position to take a final decision on whether to go into production on this scheme?

Mr. Benn: It is not as simple as that, because to maintain some sort of continuing programme it has been necessary from time to time to authorise the spending of certain production money.

Mr. Ginsburg: How much?

Mr. Benn: For the first of three aircraft, manufacture is under way, and I mentioned other aircraft which have been


agreed but it is not possible to separate production finance completely from research and development costs.

Hon. Members: How much?

Mr. Brooks: First, will my right hon. Friend say how much? Second, will he indicate what tests of public reaction are to be carried out in this country to ascertain the tolerability of sonic boom?

Mr. Benn: On the question of how much, the expenditure on Concorde, which is running at a rate which has been published, is divided between research expenditure and money necessary for the early production models. I do not have the figures in my head, but I shall write to my hon. Friend to give him the best break-down.
On the second point, the responsibility for deciding whether Concorde should be allowed to fly overland lies not with me, but with the Ministers responsible for civil aviation. I am concerned only with the testing of the aircraft, which may involve some overland flying.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology whether, in the light of Anglo-French experience in the development of the Concorde, he will approach the United States and French Governments, with a view to a pooling of resources in the development and production of the proposed Boeing 2707.

Mr. Benn: I think that at this stage we should concentrate our efforts on making a success of Concorde.

Mr. Corfield: Surely the Minister can give some indication whether he is thinking about these proposals which, as he knows, have been put forward by a very respected leader of the industry, namely. Sir George Edwards?

Mr. Benn: I have followed Sir George Edwards' speeches. The general idea of international participation in aircraft manufacture is sensible, and I can understand how we can help Boeing, given the fact that we are five years ahead. I am not clear how far American manufacturers could help us with Concorde. Although these ideas ought to be in our minds, they cannot be formulated into sensible proposals at this stage in the programme.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the tendency of hon. Gentlemen opposite to turn

to an American solution to our problems, and because of the disappointing response so far of the international airline fraternity towards the Concorde, is my right hon. Friend prepared to make pubiic funds available so that a special boost can be given to enhancing the sales pros pects of the Concorde?

Mr. Benn: The companies are engaged in a vigorous sales programme, and I do not just mean crude sales. They have invited potential customers to plan cockpit layout and the general rig of the aircraft. Some pilots from international airlines have flown the aircraft, and my hon. Friend will have seen that they are highly delighted with it. Marketing is going very well, and the Government are paying the costs of the Concorde operation at this stage.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the route to be followed in Concorde's trial flight.

Mr. Benn: We have not yet quite completed our discussions with local authorities and other interested parties. I shall inform the House as soon as possible of the route finally selected.

Mr. Rankin: In the meantime, can my right hon. Friend say whether Concorde will fly supersonically when overland?

Mr. Benn: We have had consultations with a number of local authorities, and in the House with hon. Members on 12th November, when we explained that apart from the question of Concorde operating as a commercial aircraft overland, it will be necessary to have some straight runs, which will include some overland flying, to do the tests to provide the performance guarantees. When I am ready I shall make a statement about it.

Private Industry (Research)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to return industrial research functions at present carried out in Government research establishments to private industry.

Mr. Benn: The Government research establishments are not carrying out functions which were formerly those of private industry. Closer co-operation between the establishments and industry is being


encouraged and my Department is continuing to contract out to private industry as much as possible of its research and development work.

Mr. Howell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I last pressed him on the possibility of transferring functions at present in the research establishments back to private industry, he said that the tax reductions which I said were necessary to encourage firms to take on these functions lay outside his responsibility? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has acquired a bigger economic empire, can he see whether they are within his responsibility and take action accordingly?

Mr. Benn: The tax concessions point certainly is not within my responsibility and I am not sure that the relevance of it to the hon. Gentleman's point is as clear as he suggests. The amount of research and development in industry financed by my Department is three times as great as that which is done intra-murally, and I have already adopted measures designed to encourage co-operation between our establishments and industry.

Mr. Snow: Is the spin-off from research establishments under my right hon. Friend's control given adequate commercial exploitation?

Mr. Benn: Of course. N.R.D.C. has a responsibility of one kind, and I have set up industrial units, notably in the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, with this point in mind. As the result of our work, the awareness of the establishments of the need to encourage industry to exploit the spin-off is pretty well understood.

Investment Grants

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister of Technology when he will publish the results of the study of effectiveness of investment grants announced on 4th February of this year.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley): I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 10th November, 1969.—[Vol. 791, c. 14–16.]

Mr. Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it is now almost a year since the Select Committee on Estimates called for a new study of this unruly and uncontrollable

element in public spending? Is it not worrying that even now we still do not seem anywhere near getting on with this study?

Mr. Varley: It was started in the Board of Trade in February of this year. A good deal of work has been done, and the C.B.I, is being approached about the study and the forms which will go out to individual firms.

Mr. Barnett: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in The Times today that his Department is carrying out a study of all Government aid? Does that include R.E.P.? If not, would it not be as well to include it, bearing in mind at the same time that the seven-year guarantee has little meaning if the incentive is ineffective?

Mr. Varley: This study does not include R.E.P. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not extraordinary that the Minister should have waited——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not a bit of it. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne to ask Question No. 11.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Technology what was the proportionate share of manufacturing investment in the gross domestic product over the latest quarter for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion during the calendar year 1961.

Mr. Benn: At current prices fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing industry accounted for 4·4 per cent, of gross domestic product in the second quarter of 1969 compared with 5·1 per cent. in 1961.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In the light of that most interesting reply, may I ask how the Minister would answer a taxpayer who asked how he could justify the expenditure of £500 million a year on investment grants to promote investment?

Mr. Benn: There are many aspects, as the hon. Gentleman knows, which would need to be studied if such a question


were put. But there is reason to believe that the investment grant system may have checked the down-turn which would otherwise have occurred during the intervening period. In 1961 there was a sustained increase of investment for cyclical reasons.

Mr. Ridley: Since industrial development is declining sharply in real terms under this Government, what do they intend to do about it?

Mr. Benn: The underlying figures for increasing investment in 1968–69 and 1969–70 revealed by the trend suggest a 10 per cent. increase in both years.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to effecting earlier repayment of investment grants? Something immediate is required and this could well produce that.

Mr. Benn: I regularly discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of my colleagues the investment position. This proposal has been considered, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, over a long period.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Technology what is his latest estimate of the level of manufacturing investment during the first two quarters of 1970; and how such an estimate compares with the out-turn, in constant money terms, in the first two quarters of each of the immediately preceding five years.

Mr. Benn: Information is collected, in the Investment Intentions Inquiry, only for calendar years as a whole. The latest inquiry indicated an increase in the volume of manufacturers' investment between 1969 and 1970 in the region of 10 per cent. Past figures of manufacturers' investment in the first two quarters of each year have been at constant (1963) prices: £647 million in 1969, £608 million in 1968, £647 million in 1967, £649 million in 1966 and £628 million in 1965.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Was not the latest inquiry, to which the Minister refers, conducted before the Government announced that they would not create a prior deposit scheme? Has that not changed the whole pattern completely? Is it not clear that the credit squeeze, the liquidity squeeze, which will apply with

great severity in the spring, will have a disastrous effect on investment?

Mr. Benn: It is a bit too simple to put it in the hon. Gentleman's extreme terms. Obviously changes in the environment and in conditions make a difference to investment intentions. Although the Government are interested in an increase in manufacturing investment, I do not take the alarmist view taken by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir K. Joseph: But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the rate of profit to British industry has been squeezed and that the fear of price control haphazardly imposed by the Government has a great influence on investment trends?

Mr. Benn: From my experience of administering prices policy with the engineering industries over a period, I can say that there has been no difficulty in our relations with the firms with which we have dealt on this aspect. I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that all these surveys that we make reflect differently on his plea a moment ago to abandon all the surveys which the Government undertake to study the developing position.

British Steel Corporation (Trust Fund)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will give a direction to the British Steel Corporation to publish particulars of the fund, estimated at an amount of approximately £400,000, established to compensate a group of employees in the steel industry, thrown out of work by nationalisation, and place in the Library an audited account of such fund with all disbursements to date, solely public funds being entailed.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Technology what directions he has given to the British Steel Corporation as to the disposal of the fund set up on nationalisation to compensate former employees who were subsequently and thereby displaced: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Lever: I assume the hon. Members are referring to a trust fund established by the British Iron and Steel Federation prior to nationalisation. I


understand this is an independent discretionary trust. Its control and administration is wholly within the powers of the trustees and neither my right hon. Friend nor the British Steel Corporation has any right to interfere with its administration.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that the funds vested in the trust were without the nationalisation Statute and not affected in any way by the contents of that Statute? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman say so, and will he say what legal recourse applicants may have to secure moneys from the fund from the trustees for the purposes for which the fund was established?

Mr. Lever: On the first part of that supplementary question, I think that it is correct to say that the trust remaining independently in force and is not controlled by the nationalisation Statute.
The rights of beneficiaries or contingent beneficiaries are the same as in any discretionary trust. This raises interesting and exciting possibilities for them, but not necessarily with the legal power of remedy to force the trustees to exercise their discretion in a particular way at a particular time.

Mr. Peyton: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that he thinks the fund is independent of the Government and of the nationalisation statute? Can he say who is in control of the fund, whether there have been any applications from those who were envisaged as possible beneficiaries, and what is happening to the fund now?

Mr. Lever: When I said "I think", I was modestly covering the possibility that there might have been some reference to this somewhere in the Act. So far as I know, there has not. I made clear that this is an ordinary trust fund governed by the ordinary rules of trust law. The trustees are in charge of the fund. They are governed by the terms of the trust deed which can only be enforced against them in the ordinary way, in the courts, by anybody who thinks that he has the right to so enforce them.

Sir J. Eden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot evade responsibility completely in this way? Is he not aware that in 1966 a firm undertaking was given by a previous Minister to safeguard the interests of Federation staff both with regard

to pensions and compensation? Ought he not to see that that undertaking is maintained?

Mr. Lever: That undertaking has been honoured. We are talking about a totally different matter, namely, the operation of a private trust fund governed by a private trust instrument where the ordinary law applies. The trustees have total authority, subject to the terms of the trust deed, as to how that fund shall be disbursed. It is just like any trust fund.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Gas Supplies (Conversion Programme)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Technology what assurances he has received from the Gas Council that there will be no interruption in supplies of gas to domestic consumers over the Christmas period due to the conversion programme.

Mr. Harold Lever: I am informed that the boards have arranged their programmes so as to avoid undertaking conversions during the Christmas week.

Sir J. Eden: I am glad to hear that that is so. But as so many people do not appear to be getting the promised advantages from increased efficiency and reduced prices, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the future programme will be phased out over a much longer period?

Mr. Lever: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assumptions. The Council has done its utmost to achieve this progress with the maximum convenience to consumers, and it will continue to do so.

Continental Shelf (Exploration and Development)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated expenditure on Continental Shelf exploration and development by the National Coal Board and the Gas Council, respectively, in each of the next five years.

Mr. Benn: Over the next five years the estimates made by the two industries of average expenditure under current licences and in respect of known discoveries are: Gas Council about £5


million a year and the National Coal Board about £4 million a year.

Sir J. Eden: Can the Minister say what proportion of that will be spent by Gas Council Exploration Ltd. or by any of its other subsidiaries?

Mr. Benn: I cannot specifically answer that question. I should draw attention to the fact that I am referring to current licences and known discoveries. This does not cover forecast expenditure under future licences. But I will consider whether I can give a more satisfactory answer.

Shipping (Cheap Credit Guarantees)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the cheap credit guarantees for British shipowners to be exhausted; when he expects repayments under the revolving scheme to exceed new guarantees; and whether he has now decided how to deal with the situation.

Mr. Harold Lever: The limit of guarantees is likely to be reached by early next year and consideration is being given to the situation which will then arise. I do not expect repayments to exceed applications for further guarantees in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when an early decision can be reached on the matter? Is he aware of the need for it from the point of view of the whole of the shipbuilding industry, and has he approached the banks to see whether they are willing to go on giving this artificially low credit?

Mr. Lever: The outstanding liability under guarantees issued or offered is £335 million out of a fund of £400 million. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that a decision one way or the other will be taken in good time so as not to prejudice anybody affected by it.

Mr. David Price: Does the Minister agree that this scheme is bound to reach a peak before it settles down to a general level of credit guarantee? Will the Minister accept that this is something which I failed hopelessly to get his former colleague to accept in Standing Committee? This is an inevitable fact of life.

Mr. Lever: If it is true that the hon. Gentleman failed with my former colleague, he can congratulate himself that I have been more receptive and have accepted his point.

Jaguar Aircraft (Noise)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology how many representations about the excessive noise caused he received when the Anglo-French Jaguar prototype flew supersonically on 12th October last in this country.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Neil Carmichael): None was reported to us.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Jaguar flew supersonically on her trial flight, and even allowing for the difference in size between that plane and the Concorde, if it did, were any protests received?

Mr. Carmichael: It was not quite comparable, since the Jaguar, while it flew supersonically on 12th October, was well out to sea, in accordance with the normal arrangements for such flights.

New Jobs, Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Technology how many new jobs are expected to be provided in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area in the next 12 months.

Mr. Varley: A total of 4,650 jobs, of which 3,620 are for males, are expected to arise within the next four years in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area in new industrial buildings for which industrial development certificates have been issued and in existing buildings taken over by manufacturing firms. I regret it is not known how many will become available during the next 12 months.

Mr. Boyden: Can my hon. Friend say how the rate that he has given compares with estimates of the current year and the year before?

Mr. Varley: Not without notice, but I can tell my hon. Friend that good progress is being made in South-East Durham, and we hope that that progress, will continue.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the really unsatisfactory position about new jobs on the North-East Coast—and I propose to give the figures if I catch the eye of the Chair during the next debate —would it not be better if the Minister were to get down to saying what the position is now? A lot of people will be dead in four years' time if we do not get on with getting more jobs into the North-East Coast area.

Mr. Varley: A great deal of progress has been made in the northern region, and I look forward to listening to the hon. Lady's speech in the debate to follow.

Advance Factories, West Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made with the erection and leasing of the two advance factories in the West Auckland area.

Mr. Varley: Both advance factories, one of 25,000 sq. ft. and the other of 10,000 sq. ft., are under construction and are expected to be completed in March and February, 1970, respectively. Applications have been received for both and negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. Boyden: Can my hon. Friend say how many male jobs are likely to arise in these two factories?

Mr. Varley: I cannot give precise information, but I believe that there will be a high proportion of male jobs in these two factories.

Woomera (Departmental Charter Flights)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology under what agreement with the International Air Transport Association Members of Parliament are prevented from occupying vacant seats in his Department's chartered flight to Adelaide and Woomera.

Mr. Carmichael: Her Majesty's Government are not a party to International Air Transport Association agreements. As a matter of policy, and in order to avoid prejudice to the interests of scheduled air services, Departmental charter flights are not made available to persons not travelling on business connected with the Department.
The Mintech charter service is to Adelaide and could of course be used by Members of Parliament travelling on business concerned with Woomera.

Mr. Dalyell: Desirable though it may be for Members of Parliament to visit Australia—[Laughter.]—laughing apart, should not there be more scrutiny of these issues? If Ministers want Members of Parliament to become better informed in what they say, should not such visits be made available?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend should know that my right hon. Friend is always willing to consider requests by hon. Members to be informed on subjects such as what is happening in Woomera. If my hon. Friend has any particular interest that he would like to follow up perhaps he will contact my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: May we be told in intelligible language what this is all about?

Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Member had been following the Questions which have been put down by my hon. Friend during recent Question Times he might have followed the meaning of this. A charter flight leaves this country for Australia. The aircraft is chartered by the Ministry of Technology for technicians, scientists and cargo going to the test ranges at Woomera. My hon. Friend was asking whether any space could be made available on that aircraft for Members of Parliament who have a particular interest in travelling to Woomera.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what is the net cost to public funds of a return journey to Woomera by a Member of Parliament, taking advantage of a seat on a Ministry of Technology chartered flight, which would otherwise be unoccupied.

Mr. Carmichael: The net cost to public funds of an authorised return journey on the Department's chartered service to Australia is £60.

Mr. Dalyell: Are my right hon. Friends aware that this is not an issue of jaunts for Members of Parliament; it is a fairly serious issue of scrutiny? Could not such places be made available?

Mr. Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend for putting this matter in perspective. As he knows—and as I hope the House now knows—this charter flight is for cargo, scientists and technicians going to Australia, and any other authorised persons, going to visit the site at Woomera on business.

Mr. Corfield: Since the aircraft is going there anyhow, if the seat would otherwise not be occupied why should it cost £60 for a Member of Parliament to go?

Mr. Carmichael: That is the cost that the charter undertaking charges to the Department when chartering this plane.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the Minister say why this should be confined to Members of Parliament? Why should not some industrialists be allowed to participate in this cheap seats arrangement, in order to sell exports in Australia?

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend asked specifically why Members of Parliament should not be allowed to use this flight. I think I said in my answer that any authorised journeys to study what is happening in Woomera would be accepted.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. Can you give us some guidance on this latest series of questions, Mr. Speaker? The questions answered from the other side were extremely difficult to hear, and we were left at the end of the exchanges with a sense of total confusion. We are wondering what has been going on.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Member's confusion.

Motor Industry

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology if he will set up a Departmental Committee to look in detail into the problems and future of the motor industry.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: No, Sir. These subjects are constantly under examination in the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C., on which the Department is represented. My right hon. Friend keeps closely in touch with developments through his regular meetings with the major firms, individually and collectively, and through the National Advisory Council for the Motor

Manufacturing Industry, of which he is Chairman.

Mr. Roberts: We know all that. Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to consider the long-term problems of this industry? Does he not agree that it is high time that it ceased to be the whipping boy of the economy? Does he not also agree that his Department has certain responsibilities for seeing that Treasury measures are used to counter the seasonal cycle in the industry? Does he not also accept that his Department has a responsibility in connection with problems such as comparative wage rates between different areas in relation to this industry?

Mr. Speaker: That is a long question.

Dr. Davies: I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The question of wage rates is not a matter for the Ministry of Technology. I cannot agree with him, either, that the industry is a whipping boy of the national economy. But with regard to my hon. Friend's last point, the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C. has recently submitted a report to the National Economic Development Council on the problems and prospects of the industry for the next five years. This is now being examined, and I should have thought that it would meet the main points raised in my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. Edelman: On the technical aspect of this matter, has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the safety factors which are now statutorily required in respect of motor cars by the United States Administration? Has he had discussions on this matter with British motor manufacturers, in the interests of future exports?

Dr. Davies: This matter has been drawn to our attention and has been discussed.

Mr. Prior: Is not the answer quite simple? Is it not that the Government should stop interfering with the motor car industry?

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Technology, what measures he is taking to assist in improving the efficiency of the motor manufacturing industry.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: As its production and export achievements show, the British motor manufacturing industry is a large and efficient one, and the managements of the companies are constantly striving to improve efficiency still further. The Department keeps in constant touch with them in order to be aware of their problems and to give the fullest possible assistance.

Mr. Price: Will my hon. Friend place in the Library of the House of Commons the report of the Motor Manufacturing Economic Development Council which he is at present studying? Will he also make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that we need to stimulate the whole market over the coming months in order to combat the disparity in seasonal sales between winter and summer?

Dr. Davies: I am sure that the report to which I referred in my earlier reply will be made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Price: When?

Dr. Davies: At this moment I cannot say precisely. On my hon. Friend's point about the treatment of the industry on the economic front by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that my hon. Friend is well capable of bringing that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ridley: Since this was one of the first industries to be restructured by the I.R.C., what follow-up has been done to see whether the effects of that restructuring proved to be right or wrong?

Dr. Davies: One of the best tests of the effectiveness of restructuring, or, indeed, of any other economic measures taken in connection with the motor industry is to consider the present trends in export figures. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be delighted to know that the annual value this year is running at the rate of £1,000 million, one of the very highest figures ever recorded.

Mr. Barnett: Is there any evidence that current restrictions at home have hampered our exports of motor cars? Is there not at least some evidence that some of the trouble with our home market

is the inability of the industry to compete with foreign imported cars?

Dr. Davies: I have given the rate at which exports are running. In the present year, about half the total number of cars, and over 40 per cent. of commercial vehicles, are being produced for export. This is an increase on last year's figures.

Regional Development

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to make the present methods of regional development more effective.

Mr. Varley: The recent changes in the responsibilities and structure of the Department will facilitate appraisal of the regional implications of our industrial and economic policies. My right hon. Friend intends to keep a close watch on the effectiveness of those regional measures for which he is responsible.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Press announcement of today correct, namely, that a Government study is starting on the effectiveness of investment grants? In any case, will the hon. Gentleman consider more effective methods of attracting industry and creating new jobs in Scotland, where the net loss of 67,000 jobs in the last three years has been very disappointing in relation to the amount of money involved?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Member will recall that I dealt with the question of investment grants in answering an earlier Question. That may have been before he came into the House. The hon. Member has pursued the question of jobs lost in Scotland at previous Question Times, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, and on every occasion he has been given a satisfactory reply. I can say that I.D.C. approvals between January, 1965, and September, 1969, were estimated to represent over 100,000 additional jobs for Scotland.

Mr. Tinn: If my hon. Friend has not already done so, will he read the article which appeared in November of last year in the National Institute Economic Review, containing an analysis of regional


policy and showing that the present system tends to attract capital-intensive industry to development areas, which are not appropriate to them?

Mr. Varley: I have not seen that article, but I do not think that I can accept at this stage that the full range of policies should not apply to development areas. We are convinced that the full range must apply.

Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what is the total tonnage of coal being used by the Central Electricity Board; what is the cost per therm in the respective areas; and what is the projection of costs in 10 years time.

Mr. Harold Lever: 68·9 million tons in 1968–69 and about 70 million tons in 1969–70. I will, with permission, circulate cost figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It would not be practicable to give estimates of the costs of coal in ten years' time.

Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in the interests of this nation, it is time that the denigration of coal and its miners ceased? Would he not agree that when people opposed to the mining industry compare its costs to those of other sources of energy, they are generally not very factual?

Mr. Lever: It is not the only area in which people want to quote figures without adequate study in depth. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Eden: What progress has been made in the negotiations for a contract between the C.E.G.B. and the National Coal Board for its total coal requirements?

Mr. Lever: This is a matter for those two bodies to negotiate. I cannot make any statement on the state of their negotiations.

Following is the information:


Current Delivered Coal Costs as estimated by the c.e.g.b.


C.E.G.B. Regions

(d./therm)


South East
…
…
5·70 to 5·80


SouthWest
…
…
5·60 to 5·70


Midlands
…
…
4·45 to 4·50


North East
…
…
4·45 to 4·50


NorthWest
…
…
5·00 to 5·35


Average
…
…
4·80 to 4·85

Energy Supplies

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that the change of regime in Libya will not endanger energy supplies to this country; if he will seek to ensure that security of supply is given a higher priority than cheapness; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Lever: The recent change of regime in Libya has not affected oil supplies to this country in any way and 1 have noted the new regime's undertaking to honour all oil concessions. The Government's fuel policy pays full attention to security of supply; diversification of sources is reducing the risk of a shortfall in supplies to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eadie: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a situation as exists in Libya is the cause of great anxiety when we depend so much on energy supplies outwith this country? How long has the contract to run with which we were saddled by hon. Gentlemen opposite for very expensive gas from Libya?

Mr. Lever: I cannot give my hon. Friend offhand that last statistic, but I can understand his zeal for wanting us to take into account—as we do—the usefulness of domestic supplies of energy, but I cannot cut off oil supplies. What I can do is to assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step to ensure our security in respect of oil supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLICATION (DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the pornographic leaflets, advertising a book published by the Julian Press, which have been posted to residents of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Kenilworth in the past few weeks.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 21st July, the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered this circular and I agree with his opinion that


it does not offend against the Obscene Publications Acts or against any other legislation.—[Vol. 787, c. 266.]

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these leaflets were posted indiscriminately to 14,000 of my constituents, causing great offence and embarrassment to many of them, particularly elderly people, who apparently do not share the same degree of sophistication about worldly matters as the Director of Public Prosecutions? How are these people to be protected in future from such intrusion, now that apparently anything goes under the increasingly permissive society?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate, of course, that receipt of these pamphlets by persons who have not asked for them can cause offence and embarrassment. But, in view of the conclusion that they are neither obscene nor indecent, they just do not come within the ambit of the criminal law. The problem which the hon. Member has mentioned is easy to state, but its solution is far more difficult to find.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members have had complaints about this particular publication? While appreciating my right hon. and learned Friend's difficulties under the Obscene Publications Acts, may I ask whether he would have a look to see whether there is a case for prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act?

The Attorney-General: Whether the product comes up to the preparatory blurb is not for me to judge.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a decision about the pornographic publication advertised in a circular sent to several constituents of the hon. Member for Ilford, North, of which he has received a copy.

The Attorney-General: As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), on 13th October, after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the publication and circulation of this book, and on the basis of the information at present before him, the Director of Public Prosecutions has

decided not to take criminal proceedings in respect of the book. I agree with this decision.—[Vol. 788, c. 39–40.]

Mr. Iremonger: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that this was a decision not that a prosecution could not be brought, but that, as a matter of policy, it should not be brought? Would he not consider that it might be better to let the courts decide this, and not make it an administrative decision?

The Attorney-General: Unless there are reasonable prospects of securing a conviction, I do not think it is proper to bring prosecutions in any given case.

Mr. Bidwell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for all hon. Members to have copies of these publications so that we know what we are talking about?

The Attorney-General: If there is overwhelming pressure for this request to be carried out, I shall see whether a copy can be placed in a place of security in the Library.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, whereas I first complained to him about this matter as long ago as last November, very often hundreds of thousands of these circulars are directed to areas such as Malvern in my constituency, where there is a special concentration of schools and thousands of schoolchildren from all over the country, and also an especially high concentration of elderly people? Would he not, therefore, look at this entire matter again with a view to taking powers to prevent this highly undesirable practice?

The Attorney-General: If there were any evidence of a particular campaign of publicity directed to a particular school, I would certainly be willing to look at that form of publicity. But all of us—Members of Parliament perhaps most of all—are the unwilling recipients of many circulars. It is awfully difficult to decide how the flood can be stemmed.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that the Home Office has urged hon. Members to urge their constituents to complain? I have actually asked my constituents to do this


and they have had further leaflets and books. This is extremely distasteful, and it is not good enough for the Government to say that nothing can be done. Is it not time that some positive action was taken over this rather distasteful business?

The Attorney-General: The problem is a very difficult one. Of course, the Government, the police, the Customs and the Post Office are not inactive in this field and hundred of thousands of these publications—not the particular one which I have mentioned—are confiscated each year.

Oral Answers to Questions — LITIGANTS (REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that, under many of the Government's appeal boards, provision is made for an appellant to be represented by a friend or his trade union official; and whether he will take steps to make such facilities permissible in the various courts of law.

The Attorney-General: It may be that in referring to the Government's appeal boards my hon. Friend has in mind the various administrative tribunals, which are of course wholly independent of the Government. The county courts and the magistrates' courts already have power to allow litigants to be represented by someone who is not legally qualified. I do not think it would be advantageous to litigants to extend this power to the higher civil and criminal courts.

Mr. Lewis: Surely it is up to the appellant himself or the person concerned if he or she would like to be represented by someone other than a legal gentleman? Surely the person they select should be allowed to represent them? Surely we believe in freedom in this matter?

The Attorney-General: Yes, but it would be unfortunate for a litigant to encourage the idea that unskilled representation would do him any good.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Attorney-General realise that if the suggestion

embodied in the Question were acceded to it would result in considerable injustice through the use of persons not learned in the law and not having undergone legal training?

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred fPeart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for Thursday, 4th December.
Instead of the Second Reading of the Gas Bill there will be a debate on a Motion to take note of the White Paper, "Terms for Partial Contracting Out of the National Superannuation Scheme"— Command No. 4195.

Mr. Heath: May I thank the Leader of the House for making that announcement, which will be appreciated in all quarters of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

RACE RELATIONS ACTS REPEAL BILL

Mr. Ronald Bell presented a Bill to repeal the Race Relations Acts 1965 and 1968; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

Mr. Ronald Bell presented a Bill to provide for the making of a special report by the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales constituted by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, for the amendment of the Representation of the People Acts; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

NORTHERN ECONOMIC PLANNING REGION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) to move his Motion, may I remind the House that this is a half-day's debate. Every Northern Member wishes to speak in it.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the remarkable economic and social progress in the Northern Economic Planning Region which has resulted from the policies of the Government, and would welcome further public and private investment to establish a permanently expanding economy in the region.
The remarkable progress which is referred to in the Motion, and which is being made in the Northern Region, is apparent to all except those too prejudiced to appreciate it. There are many visible examples of that progress, and I will quote briefly a few of them to substantiate the fact that remarkable progress is being made.
There is, for instance, the construction of an aluminium smelter plant at Lyne-mouth, which is bringing into the region one of the newest types of industry, likely to have a very long-term and expanding future. Very remarkable, too, are the shipbuilding amalgamations which have taken place on the North-East Coast as a direct result of the intervention of the Government in the affairs of the shipbuilding industry.
This has given the North-East of England, for the first time for a generation, a viable and world competitive shipbuilding industry. It is significant that the North-East shipbuilding industry at the moment has about £230 million of orders on its books, which is nearly 50 per cent. of the total shipbuilding orders of the United Kingdom.
If we move inland from the North-East coast we see in all the populated areas of the region the growth of a number of new industries going into advance factories and in other situations. In my constituency, for instance, there is at Tanfield Lea, near Stanley, the most modern dry battery plant in the world, designed for a major export drive into world markets. In Consett there is building

up the most modern plant for the manufacture of polypropylene in Europe.
One of the problems of the Northern Region has always been the comparative geographical remoteness of its main centres of manufacturing industry from the main centres of manufacturing industry in the rest of the United Kingdom. Progress is, therefore, necessary in communications and it is, in fact, being made. The Durham motorway is virtually complete, and of no less importance is the great amount of work which has taken place on the A68 trunk road which runs from Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire directly to Edinburgh and which is as crucially important to industrial development on the west side of County Durham as is the A1 to industrial development on the east side of the County. In the western part of the Northern Region work is in progress on 50 miles of the extension of the M6 motorway. This is bound to play an important part in the development of industry in the west side of the Northern Region.
It is not unfair to say that it adds up to an economic and social revolution which is taking place in the Northern Region—an economic and social revolution which is all the more remarkable when it is viewed against the background of the cruel series of hammer blows which have been dealt to the region by the contraction of manpower in the basic industries of coal mining and heavy engineering, which, during the last eight years, have lost more than 100,000 jobs.
Before I leave this part of my speech I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) who, in his former capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was charged with responsibility for development in the Northern Region, who suffered a great deal of unjustified criticism in many quarters in carrying out that job and who has certainly played a major personal part in laying a very strong foundation upon which, I am sure, others will build in the future.
Having talked of the remarkable progress which has been made and is being made, I would, nevertheless, not for a moment seek to pretend that serious problems do not remain in the Northern Region. The nature and seriousness of


the problem is demonstrated by the unemployment figures, which at 4·7 per cent. at the latest count, are still hovering around double the national average. But as a barometer of progress in the region, the overall figure for the region can be misleading. In some areas of the region the figure is much lower than, although I know that in others it is much higher than, 4·7 per cent. Indeed, in my constituency the unemployment figure is 5·8 per cent.
I should like to analyse that a little further, because important lessons can be drawn from an analysis of the employment figures in the region in looking to what needs to be done for the future growth and stability of the economy of the region. In the Stanley employment exchange, in my constituency, the unemployment rate for men is now 7·3 per cent., but no fewer than 62 per cent. of the unemployed men are 55 years of age and over. This is an area of particularly heavy pit closures, and these figures indicate that there is a particular problem affecting older men of working age in these areas. It is a staggering figure that almost two in every three unemployed men in that exchange are 55 years of age and over.
When we talk about percentages, I am always conscious that the man who is unemployed is 100 per cent. unemployed, and that if he is in an age group for which there appears to be no prospect of obtaining employment it is a degrading and demoralising position for him to be in. In addition, the loss of his labour is a waste of productive potential for the economy not only of the region but of the nation.
This analysis of the special problems in particular areas of the Northern region demonstrates the need for the further public and private investment for which I have called in my Motion in order to establish a permanently expanding economy in the Northern Region. It is also clearly indicated that there is need for selectivity and concentration of that investment in those areas within the region where particular problems remain. We tend always to think of the region in terms of manufacturing industry. But we must look at its economy beyond that. My view is that there is need to stimulate rather than retard service industries in

the region and that there is a case for a regional relaxation of the S.E.T. in the Northern Region.
The great majority of the people of the region have never known economic security. However, whilst amongst the older people of working age there is still great uncertainty about their economic security, I believe it to be true to say that, consequent upon the progress being made, amongst the younger people of working age there is a developing sense of economic security. I believe that this is manifested throughout the region by growing demands for better housing and better education. For generations, the mere struggle for existence has been such in the region that people have by and large been content to accept lower standards in these things than elsewhere in the country. I am convinced now that the situation is changing and that this is why we see this growing demand for better housing and certainly for the expansion of educational facilities.
One of the things from which the Northern Region suffers is that, on the whole, a lower percentage of children have been remaining at school beyond the statutory school leaving age than in other parts of the country. The average in the country as a whole is about 50 per cent. but in the Northern Region I understand that the overall figure has not been much above 40 per cent. But, if one analyses the figures of school leavers and those remaining at school beyond the statutory leaving age over the past four years, one sees emerging the rapid increase that is taking place in the number of those remaining at school after the age of 15.
In the Consett multilateral unit in my constituency, the number remaining at school after the age of 15 is 63·2 per cent., which is substantially above the national average and is an indication, in my belief, of how the situation is changing in the region, reflecting a growing sense of economic security and a growing belief among the people in the future of their region.
I believe that, as confidence grows, there will be an explosively expanding demand for better housing, better education and better social and public amenities and services of every description. It is for this reason that I believe that there


will be need for a massive public investment in order to provide these facilities and amenities.
You have indicated the necessity for hon. Members to be brief in the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I propose to observe your request and come to my conclusion. I hope that, by speaking briefly as the mover of the Motion, I might even set an example to others who may catch your eye. Remarkable progress has been made in the Northern Region. I believe that investment is now required there along the lines I indicate in the Motion, and I commend it to the House.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on his good fortune in the ballot for Private Members' Motions. I also congratulate him on his choice of subject and on the manner in which he delivered his speech. He has been very brief. I shall attempt to follow that good example. Once again, we are discussing the North-East and its problems, particularly its employment problems. This is one of a long series of debates.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle) rose——

Mr. Elliott: I do not think that, at this stage, I should give way. I have hardly begun. I had not finished congratulating the hon. Member for Consett on his speech. I will happily give way in due course if need be, but that will only prolong the debate.
As I was pointing out, the problems of the North-East persist. Unemployment is at a frighteningly high level still and, once again, we must attempt, I hope constructively on both sides, to see what can be done about those problems and try to see some light through the darkness. It is still very dark. Consett is the highest point in the North-East—a very high and cold place, especially at this time of the year. I was told there once, "The first nine months of the winter in this place are the worst." We have had more than nine months of winter under the present Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Consett about the problem of those who are 55 years of age or over, whether in Consett or elsewhere, who find themselves

redundant. This is a grave problem about which we feel keenly and would like to solve. The hon. Gentleman called for public and private investment in the region, and I emphasise that there must be more concentration of such investment and that it should be more carefully applied than it has been.
With 6 per cent. of the nation's population, the Northern Region has 10 per cent. of the nation's unemployed persons. This in itself is a heavy condemnation of the Government and their regional policy, in that we have had a Labour Government since 1964. So, once again, one could emphasise, although it would take time, the failure of the Government's central economic policy. Without national economic growth, with heavy restrictions, with the Bank Rate at the level it is and with businessmen and industries, large and small, heavily curtailed by the central economic policy of the Government, there is little hope for any region to expand and improve its position, let alone a development area with the massive problems which the hon. Gentleman has emphasised.
I shall only briefly comment on the demise of the Department of Economic Affairs. We are delighted to see it go. We never thought it had much to offer.
We in the development areas, when thinking of the national economic position, should not be afraid to face the fact that we may well get natural growth through a revision of development area policy as we have known it now for some years. It was because of this that we on this side welcomed the Local Employment Bill. It is right that there should be some recognition that the grey areas of today might well be the black areas of tomorrow. We have far too many areas of one sort and another—development areas, grey areas, intermediate areas. Let us fasten hard on to the fact that it is national economic policy which is failing and if any easement—in I.D.C. policy, for instance—would improve the position, let us have it.
As I said on Second Reading of the Local Employment Bill, I deplore the Government's attitude to the Hunt Committee's Report. When we are thinking of our regional problems, hon. Members on both sides of the House should put electoral temptations behind us. Electoral considerations should take second place to economic realism. I repeat, if


Merseyside, or any other area, has overcome its problems, I wholeheartedly agree with the report that it should be descheduled. The great tragedy of the Government in connection with areas which have particular and special problems is that they have always attempted to spread too little jam too thinly.
As in all former debates of this nature, we repeat from this side of the House that the greatest aid available should be given where it is most needed. Whether this be between development areas or within them, I emphasise that it is to areas of particular difficulty that such aid as is available should be given.
On 8th March, 1968, the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) instigated a debate on this subject. I am not sure whether it was the last or the second last that we have had on the problems of the North-East. I then attempted to make two appeals. I asked for a thorough investigation of the effects of the injection of development aid to development areas, in the hope that we could see just what was happening subsequent to the enormous injection of capital which has undoubtedly been made by the Governments of both parties. Secondly, I asked for a thorough inquiry into the skill requirements of new industry which had gone into the North-East.
On the first issue of investment grants and how effective they are, there is good news in The Times Business Supplement this morning. It says that an investment grant study is planned by Whitehall—not before time. It is welcome news. Let us hope that this study is speedy. The Times is right to comment, as it does, that there has been "growing restlessness in industry" about the effectiveness of grants to development areas. The Times goes on to say:
… there is a growing conviction within the Government that the old investment allowance system was a more effective and less expensive way of stimulating investment by efficient firms ‖
If that is the thinking within the Government, we are clearly all becoming Conservatives together, because the Opposition have always said this.
The most disturbing feature of development area policy has been that this immense injection of capital, particularly in the North-East, has not brought the results which it should have brought in

terms of jobs. We must look at it and look at it hard. Blanket aid has always been wrong. The Government's main mistake was that, having found that subsidy was encouraging capital-intensive industry, they decided to subsidise wages as well through R.E.P.
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), the present Foreign Secretary, when he had charge of the Department of Economic Affairs, told me in answer to a Question that the great advantage of R.E.P. wold be that it would bring quick results, that jobs would come more quickly through its application. The situation after all this time with it, is considerably worse; it is worse than ever.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) is in his place. In a recent speech in the House, he rightly stated that some subsidy, some injection of capital, was going where it was neither needed nor wanted; in other words, that the injection was ineffective. To summarise this part of my speech, I suggest that capital injection into the development region which is the North-East is in a hopeless mess and should be reviewed urgently and immediately, and again I welcome the suggestion in The Times this morning.
How much has this injection meant in terms of jobs? I was interested to read in the Northern Echo of 22nd November that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that there had been criticism that some Government aid to development areas was wasted, that it provided more money than was necessary for each new job. The right hon. Gentleman took a period and stated a figure. The period is somewhat interesting. He chose that from April, 1960, to April, 1969, and gave the cost of providing a new job in the North-East over that period as being £637.
By breaking it down a bit, from 1st April, 1960 to 1st April, 1964, I found that under the Conservative Government it cost £385 to provide a new job in the North-East, while from 1st April, 1964, to 1st April, 1969, it cost £622. The right hon. Gentleman took the longer period because he understandably wanted to bring down the average by bringing in some cheaper Conservative years. The hard and awful truth for hon. Members opposite to swallow is that


everything costs more with a Labour Government. Everything has shot up in price under a Labour Government, and it is costing a considerable amount more money to provide a new job under a Labour Government than it did with us.
When approximated, the figures are disturbing. They show that at present, with a Labour Government, 33,000 fewer people are employed in the region than in 1964 and that the Government have spent nearly £100 million to get to this state of affairs. The hard message of the figures is that under a Labour Government the number of employees has gone down and cost of providing new jobs has sharply gone up.
I will say little more other than to touch on my second point. I should like the Minister of State to say something about the present training position. Will he say something about sponsored courses? There is a great hope here if these courses can be developed rapidly and on progressive lines.
I sum up by saying that the regional policy of the Government seems to have rested on the assumption that we could have growth on the outskirts of the country by restraining growth in the centre. It is time that we took a good hard look at this and realised to the full that it is national economic growth which is essential to the future prosperity and development of the North-East and other development areas. Secondly, it is high time that a great deal more care was taken to relate subsidy to actual jobs actually created. Blanket aid is wrong, always has been wrong, and continues to be wrong. We must seek to give the greatest possible aid available between and within development areas.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: All the speakers this afternoon will have an interest in the Northern Region, but we all have a particular interest in our own constituencies.
I intend briefly to speak about Sunderland, and, to put what I shall say into perspective, I say at once that we have had considerable Government aid over the past few years. Our major industry is shipbuilding, and no Government have helped the shipbuilding industry more than the present Government. At the

same time, Sunderland has benefited from massive development aid over recent years.
To save my hon. Friend the Minister of State telling me when he winds up the debate, I will tell him that the industrial development certificates approved for Wearside from the beginning of 1968 to the third quarter of this year number 25, account for 800,000 sq. ft. and will provide employment for 930 men and 280 women. In addition, we have had approved four advance factories, two of them completed and two being constructed on the Pennywell Estate.
Again, most of the proposals for which I have campaigned over the past year or two have been implemented, though I ask my hon. Friend to tell me what, if anything, has been done about the proposal I once made that we might have a small containerisation berth at Sunderland.
We have been asked to help ourselves and we have spent a good deal of out resources in doing so. We have completed the central redevelopment scheme and we shall complete the new civic centre next year. We are told to be mobile. Whilst 11,000 people move into the town of Sunderland every day to work, 16,000 people from Sunderland work outside the town. That is a record that can compare with most industrial cities in the country.
But in spite of all this we have had persistent unemployment at a high level, and we cannot be satisfied. That is why I propose to make a few constructive suggestions and criticisms to my hon. Friend. First, we have not got the structure of government right. We have far too many Ministers at the Ministry of Technology for good management. We would all like to join in paying tribute to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) did for the Northern Region, but I felt then, and feel now, that he should have been a Member of the Cabinet, and that it was perhaps a little unfortunate that he was attached to a Department which was being run down. We all respect and admire the vigour and energy of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We know that he will do his utmost for the Northern Region, but I doubt whether he is rightly attached to the Department for Local Government and Regional Planning.
However, I understand that the Department deals with the reorganisation of local government, and one thing that my hon. Friend could do is to make sure that Washington comes into greater Sunderland. This would make sense from every point of view—not only that of local government but also of industrial location. Anyone who realises the importance of Sunderland within the North-East will recognise how significant it is that over the past year or two for every firm that has been attracted by the Board of Trade to visit Sunderland six have gone to Washington without visiting Sunderland. That does not make sense of industrial location.
Secondly, as has already been said, present Government incentives are too diffuse; they are not sufficiently specific. For a couple of years or more, for example, we have had an advance factory in Sunderland standing idle and vacant. We cannot afford this, the Government cannot afford it, and the taxpayer cannot afford it. I can see no reason why we should not consider bringing in public enterprise, having provided the factory, to run it. I am sure that this would not raise any opposition within private industry. The fact that it has stood idle for that length of time has proved that it is time for public enterprise to come forward. This has been suggested time after time, and it should preferably be public enterprise with a market in the public sector.
I still do not think that we are sufficiently dogmatic in seeing that more Government contracts come to the development areas, particularly those parts of them which now carry exceptional unemployment. I know that diversification is an essential element of development area policy. But I do not think that we go far enough. Whilst it is welcome, a good deal of our diversification is too piecemeal. What we need, particularly on Wearside, is a new industry.
We are a famous centre for glass-making. We have one of the finest glass-makers in the world with tip-top management, first-class research and development, and some skills unsurpassed anywhere in the world. This enterprise which exports one-third of its products, thanks to all those efforts, can give secure, stable employment to 3,000 workpeople in Sunderland. That is important,

but it is unrealistic to think that within Sunderland we can expand the opportunities for work. It is only by dramatic increases in productivity that we have been able to maintain employment for the 3,000 to work there. To provide extra work, we must bring in a new industry.
The position in shipbuilding is that our North-East yards employ 22,000 fewer men than they did in 1955. This is a retraction comparable to coal mining, and when we realise how concentrated shipbuilding is on the North-East Coast, we find it not surprising that we have heavy unemployment on the Wear at Sunderland.
Looking at our unemployment problem in this context, we feel we not only need a new industry to provide employment on that scale, but that it is absolute nonsense to refuse the Wearside and Sunderland the special development area status. We have an unemployment problem far worse than many of the present special development areas. From the planning point of view, it is nonsense, through the present special development areas, to try to attract industry away from Sunderland to, for instance, the western part of County Durham. We must look at the whole of the Wear Valley and realise that it centres on the hub of Sunderland, and that here is where we should concentrate aid.
I have already mentioned shipbuilding, and what the Government have done. They have brought a security to the yards that they have not enjoyed for a long time. I am happy to say that this expresses itself in new labour agreements which should bring security to those who work in the yards. Nevertheless, at the same time, two points disturb me. First, over half of Britain's order book at present is placed in yards on the North-East Coast. I have noticed—this is perhaps an envious eye—the assistance that has been given to Harland and Wolff and the assistance that will apparently be given to the lower Clyde. We must see that we get comparable assistance on the North-East Coast, the most important shipbuilding district in Britain.
Secondly, I have mentioned and emphasised security, but we want far more than that. We cannot afford to lose sight of the Geddes target of 2¼ million tons.


We must move towards that. I would like to see a much more determined effort by British shipbuilders to work off the order book. More orders are still there to get. We are now being affected by the length of our order book, but I would like a concerted effort to see that we increase our output and enjoy a higher proportion of the world order book.
Finally, I should like to say a word about Government capital expenditure, which is crucial to the rehabilitation of the region, Again, two things disturb me. The first is housing. A substantial part of that capital expenditure is on housing and we cannot afford to allow our local authorities to cut back the housing programme as mine has done Housing programmes must be maintained.
Secondly, I would emphasise that the most important element within that expenditure is education. We still need and must have a new university in the North-East. We must still see that we are not an impoverished region compared with others as regards education, because nothing is more vital to the attraction of industry than high educational standards. But if we think of Government capital investment we are really thinking about the general environment character of the region. I remember that, years ago, the Easington Rural District Council coined a slogan, "Farewell to squalor". Out of that came Peterlee. If we revived that slogan and again said "Farewell to squalor" we would, at the same time, be saying farewell to most of the difficulties that have beset the North-East.

4.10 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: I am sure that the House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for raising this important matter. I should like to follow his welcome example, which I wish was followed in more debates, of being brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), in his admirable speech, put his finger firmly on the main problem facing the North-East. Despite the influx of capital, 30,000 fewer people are

now employed than five years ago. We have the highest unemployment rate since the war, and male unemployment standing at about 7 per cent. This is an unwelcomely high figure.
We would not want to decry the Government's efforts, but I think that we can say that they have not met with singular success. We do not want to introduce personalities into this debate, but I hope that the Minister of State grasps, as I am sure he does, and understands, the problems of the North-East better than his predecessor. During the last few years we have heard a lot about a Minister being specially responsible for affairs in the North-East. He seems to be very much a gimmick man and has brought very little reward.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) mentioned the factories which have gone to Washington to the detriment perhaps of the rest of the North-East. The new towns created in the North-East are doing very well, but the question which we must ask is whether they are receiving disproportionate consideration. It always seemed to me that Washington was not an area in which a new town should be placed. Geographically, it lies about six or seven miles south of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and about five or six miles west of Sunderland. It is, therefore, in an area which is already built over and the vast expenditure involved in the building of a new town seemed hardly wise in the case of Washington. However, is it wise to go on ploughing large sums of money into it and insisting on bringing new factories to the new towns to the exclusion of other areas?
Large areas of Sunderland have been cleared and are available for the building of factories. Instead of building factories in such areas, is it wise to concentrate them in places like Washington, which do not have populations large enough to service the factories? I ask the Minister of State seriously to consider whether it is worth pushing ahead with the building of new houses in the new towns.
We are very lucky to have in Washington such competent men running the management of the new town. It would be difficult to find a man of greater talent and general ability than Sir James Steel. He is perhaps making Washington more successful than socially it should be because, with such high unemployment in


this area of County Durham, I cannot see that it is right that factories should be concentrated away from the areas of unemployment and houses built, thus bringing fresh people to the area. I do not wish to be too adamant, but I think that the time has come to have a hard look at the role of the new town in areas like this and the advisability, at this time of high unemployment, of taking factories away from areas where there are people unemployed and making it necessary for people to travel a few miles to obtain employment.
I think that practically all the industrial sites in Washington new town are now taken up. Who will work on them when they are built on? Almost inevitably it will be people from Sunderland, Chester-le-Street, Birtley and Gateshead who are at present unemployed. Are we not in danger of creating a social problem by pushing ahead with housing for people who will replace these people? Will not this in the long run increase the unemployment difficulties in the North-East? All development in this area is welcome, but we should consider carefully the way in which Washington town is being developed and is receiving favouritism to the detriment of other towns in the area.
My second point concerns Amble, in my constituency. I do not want to go over all the bitterness which resulted from the premature closure of the aerodrome there after the millions of pounds spent on it during the last few years and the Government's assurances that it would continue in use. But this was an unpleasant blow to Amble and there is a considerable risk of high unemployment continuing in the town.
I heard from the brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is the chairman of the county council, that a new factory is to go up in Amble, which will relieve some of the unemployment difficulties. But, in addition to this, there is an opportunity to make some sort of social centre in Amble, which is in danger of being dissipated by Government inactivity. Amble has a harbour which could make it one of the social centres of the North-East. I think that we would all agree that what this area needs is places to which people can go

so that it may retain some of its attractions.
The harbour at Amble could be developed into a first-class yachting harbour for all types of small boats, being situated in one of the most suitable places on the North-East Coast. This is particularly important in view of the likelihood of Blyth being less available for this type of sailing. The harbour is in need of attention and I have heard that the Government will not give a grant towards its repair. I ask the Minister of State very seriously to reconsider this problem.
Amble is an area which could have a considerable future and become a resort. Its unemployment rate is extremely high. It could become an area with a totally different future from what it has now. When the old coal mines and the railways disappear, it will be ideally situated to become a centre to which people could go, but this depends on the maintenance of the harbour. I ask the Minister of State to think carefully about this.
That is all I would say, except once again to impress upon the Government that we on this side are very disappointed, after all the promises that were made and the talk of dynamic action that was given to us, that after five years of Labour rule there is now the highest rate of unemployment since the war and 30,000 fewer people are employed than at the time when we on this side received so much criticism.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I have every intention of respecting your wishes, Mr. Speaker, by being as brief as possible. I have only two particular issues to raise.
First, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who so ably moved his Motion. Like my hon. Friend, I, too, wish to pay tribute to the Government, despite what has been said from the other side of the House, for what they have done to help the Northern Economic Planning Region. There is no doubt that massive financial support has been given to the area by the Government, and this has continued since 1964, despite what we have heard from the benches opposite. While I readily admit that that support is beginning to bear fruit, we must also


admit that it still falls far short of requirement and there is a lot more to do. Credit should, however, be given where it is due in this respect.
In saying this and admitting that a lot of help has been given, it would be very dangerous for us to become complacent and to think that everything will be all right as a result of the Government's actions and measures. That would be a mistaken and dangerous attitude of mind to get into because the Government, as I am certain my hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware, must realise that there is still quite a lot more to be done. That is a view which will be shared by both sides of the House.
Unemployment in the region has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett. We must admit that it is still very high and, regrettably, much more than the national average. I have quite a lot of it in my constituency. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I quote unemployment figures from my constituency, but, if I may be allowed to explain, my constituency of Durham covers three employment exchange areas, namely, Spennymoor, Houghton-le-Spring, which is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but it comes into my constituency for registration purposes, and Durham City. Within those three employment exchange areas, we have a considerable number of unemployed.
The Spennymoor figures show that there are 1,022 men unemployed, and this is an increase since last year of 223. The total number of people unemployed in the area, including boys, women and girls, is 1,195. This in total represents an increase of 261 since last year. In Houghton-le-Spring employment exchange area, there are 811 men unemployed. Including boys and women and girls, the figure is 1,006 or an increase of 108 since last year.
Taking the Durham figures, I find that there are 1,153 men unemployed and that the total figure, including boys, women and girls, is 1,328. I must admit that these are favourable figures compared with last year, because there has been a reduction of 201. This is a favourable trend which, I hope, will continue, and I hope that this kind of trend will extend throughout the whole region.
All told, therefore, within those three employment exchange areas there are 3,529 people unemployed. I am sure that these figures are known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I concede that they might not be as high as in other parts of the region. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently high for us to be concerned about them.
I therefore complete the point by putting a very simple question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is on record as saying that there are at present 42,300 jobs in prospect. My simple question is this: how many of those jobs will find their way to the areas of Spennymoor, Houghton-le-Spring and Durham? The only thing I can do is to express the hope that these areas get their fair share.
The other question which I would like to put briefly and without going into the matter in any depth is in connection with the social progress within the region. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett has mentioned this in his Motion. What is common ground between both sides of the House is that a high level of employment is a very desirable thing, and this should be our aim. It should be the aim of the Government to try to achieve it. While admitting the importance of this, however, it is of equal importance to make sure that the whole of the social services keep pace. We must not have an imbalance of high employment and have these things lagging behind. It would disturb me if that kind of thing happened.
It must be admitted that in this respect the Government have a very good story to tell. When one looks at training, health services, schools, further education, the youth service, universities—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) talks about wanting another, and so do I— and research and tourist facilities, all these have had a terrific boost and support from the Government. That is very desirable and we are pleased about it.
One aspect, however, which gives me, at least, cause for concern is the question of doctors within the region. I know that I am raising a point which should rightly be directed to the Department of Health and Social Security, but I have informed


that Department that I intended to raise this matter and I hope that what I say will be conveyed to the Department by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The shortage of doctors affects the whole country. The whole of our hospital services are very dependent on doctors from overseas. In this respect, the hospitals within the Newcastle Hospital Board area are more dependent on doctors from overseas than most other regions. I was able to obtain figures applicable only to the end of September of last year, when, out of 1,453 doctors in the Newcastle Hospital Board's area, 505, or about one-third, were from overseas.
Doctors who come from abroad to work in our hospitals have done, and are doing, a magnificent job and deserve every tribute. However, if we are dependent on them to such a great extent, we must be concerned lest, first, they decide to return home—they are not obliged to stay here—or, secondly, this source of supply dries up and they are no longer available to us. If either of those was to happen our whole hospital service would collapse.
This is causing great concern in my part of the North-East and I hope that the Minister will convey to the appropriate Department the feelings that I have expressed. If I can be given assurances on the two matters that I have raised, I will be more than grateful.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: It is inevitable that constituency problems should be raised in a debate of this kind. Perhaps I should begin, therefore, by apologising because my constituency does not come within the boundary of the north-eastern area. However, it is in the West Riding and I assure hon. Members that what happens in one area can have an adverse effect on another, particularly if that other area does not have the advantage of being a development area.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on initiating the debate. When I read his Motion I was ready to challenge some of its assertions, though I was prepared to accept that
… remarkable economic and social progress ‖ has resulted ‖

Having heard the speeches of some of his hon. Friends, however, I must question whether even that part of the Motion is not rather exaggerated.
Considering the great amount of financial assistance that has been given to those fortunate enough to be established in development areas, it would be difficult to imagine economic and social progress not having been made. Indeed, if there had not been any progress there would be a severe indictment on the system which would demand careful scrutiny by the House and the Department concerned.
I understand that aid to the development areas is running at about £300 million a year. Some of us think that this money should be more widely shared because the favoured terms enjoyed by those in the development areas can adversely affect other parts of the country. I am not thinking only of S.E.T. and R.E.P., although hon. Members will appreciate the burden which falls on those outside the development areas who must help to pay huge public expenditure of this kind.
The Hunt Report has been published since we last debated the North-East and it set out a request that a cost-effectiveness study should be made of the inducements which have been offered to people to go to development areas. I am told that the present inducements are such that labour within an area can become in short supply, with the result that a system of bribing labour to fill places is being established, this at a good deal of Government expense. This scramble for labour, as it were, has developed differently in different areas. In some areas, however, there are still pools of male unemployment.
I was told last week by a person who is engaged in a factory which went to the North-East, and which employs a considerable amount of female labour, that the factory was at its wits' end to know how to get men to man its machines. Something must have gone wrong somewhere. Originally, in this case, there was huge private investment. There followed public investment and then, at the end of a comparatively short period, this firm has found itself in precisely the same labour position as it was before it embarked on an excursion into a development area many miles away. This is a


serious criticism of the present arrangements, and the Government must ensure that cases like this do not recur.
I have a close connection with many people in industry, including firms which have been established in development areas long before those areas were designated as development areas. These firms are enjoying all the advantages of those which have gone in response to Government's requests to development areas in the hope of solving their labour problems.
It was surely never intended that firms already established should enjoy the advantages of being in development areas. If they wish to expand they will do so where they are and as they probably have been developing for two or three centuries. There should not be great difficulty in separating the long-established firms from those which have recently gone into development areas.
We are beginning to see—this is particularly so in the West Riding of Yorkshire—a change in the economic and commercial climate. Many wool mills have gone out of existence and I am told that during the last two or three years the number of bankruptcies in this industry has been greater than ever before. The cumulative effect of this and other factors on those who must maintain their industries in non-development areas at high cost is beginning to tell, and that is why many people believe that the load should now be more widely shared.
In other words, while in this debate hon. Members are right to be concerned with constituencies which have been fortunate enough to be situated in development areas, the time has come when the change in industrial climate to which I have referred should make us adopt a more generous attitude towards the non-development areas.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) has framed his Motion in such a way that it applies to the Northern Region as a whole. The reason I interrupted the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) was to remind him of this. In the early part of his speech he constantly referred to the North-East Region.
I wish to plug this afternon that part

of the Northern Region known as Cumberland. We are grateful for the recognition given by the Government to Cumberland and for the help which we have so far received. We are glad that Carlisle was designated in the development area list but, despite all the help which has been given to us by way of grants, factories and so on, we are, naturally, looking for more.
Unemployment is more severe in West Cumberland, particularly in Millom, than in other parts. Despite all the efforts of the Board of Trade, no break-through has been made in bringing new employment to Millom, and I hope that the Government will look seriously into this. Cumberland, like other parts of the Northern Region, has suffered from pit closures. We now have only two or three collieries in operation, and I plead that these shall be allowed to continue. The main weakness of mine closures is that pits have been closed but no alternative work has been provided, and West Cumberland is still suffering from this policy.
The announcement a few weeks ago of a new motor car factory for Cumberland was most welcome, and I pay tribute to the work of Sir Frank Schon and the Cumberland Development Council, and also to the Prime Minister, for steering this important industry to Cumberland.
I also welcome the statement, published by the Government at noon today, that they are asking the Northern Economic Planning Board to examine the potential of Carlisle and West Cumberland. May this be pursued with all speed. I am glad, after so many years of dithering, that a Labour Government have made the decision to improve the road between Workington and Penrith. This will eventually give link up with the M6 and make this part of the country more attractive to industry. I hope that a favourable decision will soon be made for the electrication of the railway line between Weaver Junction and Glasgow, thus bringing in the Carlisle area. Arising out of that, I hope that consideration will be given to a freightliner depot in the area. This would greatly help industry, especially with transport problems.
We are worried about the closure of Hadrian's camp. My hon. Friend knows something about this, because of the correspondence that has passed between us


during the past six months. It would be a tragedy if this became another derelict camp of past glory after all the money that has been spent on the site. I plead with the Government to ensure that Hadrian's camp is use for some purpose.
I hope I shall not be accused of being too parochial. We need more factories, more industries, and I ask the Government again to look at Carlisle and the Solway area as a major growth area and to assist the local authorities in the provision of houses. Might I also suggest that the feasibility study of the Sol-way Barrage be looked at again with a view to its implementation?
Much more could be said about the needs of Cumberland—the hospital services, B.B.C. 2, the extension of radio. I would like to see consideration given to the development of the ports of Cumberland and other matters affecting the people—and this debate is centred ultimately on people.
We in Cumberland are grateful to the Labour Government for all the help they have given us, but, like Oliver Twist, we are asking for more. We are not an isolated community, although that may sometimes seem to be so in debates and in geographical terms. We are an important part of the community. History has proved that, but we cannot live upon history. We look to the future and believe that Cumberland, with other parts of the Northern Region, can make a contribution to the welfare of our country and of our people.

4.49 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: It was a particular pleasure to me to see my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) on his feet for the first time after his long period as Whip to the Northern Group of Labour Members. We look forward to hearing him on many other occasions after this pseudo-maiden speech.
The North-East Development Council estimates that the number of new jobs needed to reduce unemployment to 3 per cent. and to replace the jobs lost in mining, shipbuilding, steel and agriculture is 28,500 a year for the next five years. If we expect to get anywhere near this, fresh measures are urgently

needed. Some of them must come from the more effective deployment of incentives, about which I spoke on 3rd November, and some by the use of public enterprise; some, too, must come from widening the kind of job that we are seeking to create. Twenty-eight thousand jobs a year sounds a lot, but this has to be set against the total employed in the Northern Region of 1,200,000.
In the country generally, about a quarter of the working population changes jobs every year, so that there are 300,000 job starts a year in the Northern Region, and only one-tenth of these need to be new jobs. With all the job changing that is going on anyway, there is no need for the new jobs to be exact replacements of the old jobs in terms of occupation, pay and status. Indeed, if they are exact replacements, the North-East will be anchored to an obsolete occupational structure while the rest of the country goes romping ahead. That, I fear, is the effect of the development area policies of successive Governments and the reason they have not been more successful.
Since 1960, employment in manufacturing nationally has actually fallen. By contrast, employment has grown in financial, professional and scientific services by 840,000, in miscellaneous services by 131,000, and in national Government service by 80,000. This makes a total of over 1 million new jobs towards the upper end of the occupational scale, with none of them qualifying for development area incentives. The North is told to fish in the shrinking pool of the manufacturing industries, while the lush expansion of service industries is left to the South.
The purpose of Government development area policy should not be merely to enlarge the raft of manual jobs at the bottom of the occupational ladder, but to supply the rungs that are missing in the occupational ladder in the North, so that the population as a whole can move upwards, allowing plenty of room for those who are seeking manual jobs and should have them. The missing jobs in the North are in non-manual and personal service jobs, which employ only 25 per cent. of men in the Northern Region, compared with 31 per cent. nationally.
What are the missing rungs in the Northern occupational ladder? They are offices, laboratories and universities. That is, offices for company headquarters, commercial activities, social services, and the professions; laboratories and design offices for medicine, local government and other services as well as for manufacturing industry; and universities to train, retain and attract highly qualified people, and create an environment attractive to high grade employment.
I shall argue that the single most important and most fruitful new step the Government can take at once is the major expansion of Durham and Newcastle Universities and the creation of a new Teesside university.
First, let us look at the other rungs, offices and laboratories. The Government are already sending, and must continue to send, any movable office to the development areas. They have, I fear, neglected Teesside, which has the greatest lack of office employment. This should be put right. But the Government have sent every office available to somewhere in the development areas. While the pressure must be kept up, it will not provide any great number of jobs.
As for private offices, advance prestige offices should be built in Newcastle, Teesside and Sunderland to attract private office employment, but private employers are not likely to come in great numbers unless a physical and social environment is created which is attractive to such employment. Laboratories and design offices themselves do not qualify for regional employment premium or the investment grant differential, and they should qualify. But, again, the right social environment is needed, and for this there needs to be a great improvement in educational standards and provision in the region.
So I come to deal with education. The North is unique in having suffered grievously from industrial change, with no new university and an academic tradition that has never been quite the same since the Venerable Bede died twelve hundred years ago.
Durham and Newcastle Universities have done well. They increased their

numbers between 1961 and 1968 by 56 per cent. to 9,000 students, but the increase in Great Britain as a whole has been 93 per cent. In other words, the relative position of the Northern Region has deteriorated since before the Robbins Report. The region now has 2·6 university student places per 1,000 of population, compared with 4·1 for Great Britain as a whole, 5·0 in Wales and 6·6 in Scotland. To catch up with the national average, the North should have 5,000 student places more than it has today.
Looking ahead, the Department of Education and Science estimates that the demand for student places in higher education will be running at some 40 per cent. above the Robbins estimates in the mid-1970s and beyond. If the proportion of these places in universities remains no higher than its present level of 53 per cent., 120,000 more university student places will be needed by 1976, and 200,000 by 1980. Only to catch up with the Great Britain average, without exceeding it as Scotland and Wales have done to their advantage, 12,000 new student places will be needed in the Northern region by 1976 and 17,000 by 1980. Even if Durham and Newcastle Universities were to double their numbers in eight years, which is more than they were able to do in the past 10 years, they could not provide places needed to bring the Northern Region to parity with the rest of the country.
The strategy, therefore, should be that Newcastle and Durham Universities should expand as rapidly as possible with all the benefits of the vitality that has been found to go with rapid growth, and a large new university should be established on Teesside as soon as possible.
What of the cost? No one who gets around the universities, and especially the technological universities, would wish to divert any money from the improvement and expansion of their facilities. But where there is an overwhelming case, as there is uniquely in the Northern Region for a new university, it is difficult to argue that the cost per place in the single new university on a low cost site would not be lower than some at least of the university expansion schemes. The case is conclusive when it is seen that the cost of this extra expansion of Northern universities can, and should be, financed out of development area funds and not


out of the education budget, by redirecting some of the spending on the investment grant differential, as I proposed on 3rd November.
I should like to deal briefly with some counter arguments. First, students travel to universities outside their home region. This is so, but the Department of Education and Science is trying to increase the proportion of students living locally so as to reduce costs, and universities already have a considerable local bias in their entry particularly in Scotland and Wales. Secondly, graduates usually do not work near their old university. This is true, but universities are magnets for graduate and high grade employment generally.
Some might argue that the North needs further education more than university education. Already, the number of students in further education in the North is 84 per cent. of the national average, while university places are only 63 per cent. of the national average. With many vacant places in further education and three polytechnics scheduled, the North is getting the right treatment in further education. The North needs more teachers, particularly graduate teachers. The shortage of non-graduate teachers is confined to some authorities like Teesside, so the Department of Education and Science, in its wisdom, put the new college of education not in Teesside but in County Durham, which exports teachers already.
The greatest problem in education in the North is premature school leaving. This is true. More graduate teachers, reorganised secondary schools, a changed occupation structure, and wider horizons in the local community are needed. Local universities have an important influence in this matter.
Finally, it might be argued that money cannot be spared by cutting off payments of the investment grants differential at £5,000 per job created on large projects costing more than £1 million, as I suggested on 3rd November, because the North-East needs modern science-based industries. Most science-based industries —computers, electronics, instruments, jet engines, pharmaceuticals, automation equipment, and so on—are not capital-plant intensive. They are development-cost intensive, but no regional incentives are given for this and the North-East is

not getting them anyway. The only really capital-intensive science-based industries are the process industries, chemicals, oil and steel, and there often only production is done within the region, employing a steadily declining number of people.
Finally, we want quick results. I know of 5,000 industrial jobs which the North-East has lost during the course of the past year because its university prospects are dim by comparison with that elsewhere. It is the here and now that I am concerned about. The North-East will go on falling further behind until this education and social problem is dealt with.

4.58 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for initiating this debate, although I am bound to say that the Motion is in rather over-fulsome terms.
I make no complaint, but perhaps my memory is at fault. I understood that originally we were to discuss the Report of the North East Development Council. Personally, I am glad that we are not doing so, because it is much better for hon. Members on both sides to be able to talk on particular issues of which they have knowledge. So I am glad to see that, somehow or other, the title of the debate has been changed.
The last report from the North-East Development Council was an extremely glossy and expensive publication. It was entitled "Outline Strategy of Development". Of course, it is very easy to write reports and describe general prospects. However, I do not see that the council has done anything to promote the few suggestions appearing in the report which were designed to help with the problems of the North-East and the Northern Region. I am glad, though, that the council has at last been given a specific job of work. Many able people sit on it, and I am a great believer in the importance of using all the brains that we can muster to deal with our problems.
The extraordinary differences in the official figures that we are given from time to time makes it extremely difficult to assess the true position of the North-East coast. I had no idea until recently


that, when we talk about the unemployment figures of different places on Tyneside, officially the figures are lumped together under the heading "Tyneside". I do not approve of that. I would prefer to know the unemployment positions of different places on Tyneside.
Taking my own County Borough of Tynemouth, the centre of our industrial area is North Shields. We hear that there has been an enormous improvement in the shipbuilding industry. My constituency is concerned primarily with ship repairing. We have Smith's Docks, a very important ship-repairing area. However, in ship repairing, there has not been the high employment that has been found in such yards as Swan Hunter's, and quite a number of our men have been paid off.
The last report showed that Tyneside, which includes all the big areas, now has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent. That must be one of the highest in the country. In the past, it was decided to build a new dry dock in Scotland. I understand that it has now gone bankrupt. I have always wondered whether it was reasonable to have new dry docks. Though I sympathise with the deplorable unemployment position on Tyneside, if we are to develop a whole new area for shipbuilding and our economy has to be more stable and lively, I wonder whether we shall be able always to keep our shipyard workers fully employed.
There is a great deal of what I call overall consideration in the economy for the development areas, and it should be looked at carefully. Tyneside has an unemployment rate of just over 5 per cent., which is very high. But one finds oneself in difficulty in looking at the different types of figures. Any hon. Member has to be up bright and early to discover what the Government are doing with their figures. Sunderland's rate of unemployment is 8·1 per cent. South-West Durham has an unemployment rate of 9·7 per cent. South-East Northumberland has a rate of 10·8 per cent.
Those are very high and, when we discuss future problems, future policies and new developments, it is extremely difficult if we do not start from sound basic figures. Taking a figure which is the average rate over a wide area lessens the impact of the high unemployment rates in

some parts of such an area. Figures have appeared in all sorts of different reports and in answers to Parliamentary Questions. When we discuss our problems, we need as many realistic figures as possible.
In 1968–69, 18,930 new jobs went to the North-East coast. In the first two quarters of this year there have been only 7,470 jobs. That is a considerable decline. In view of the burdens that the Prime Minister has to carry and the rotten policies that he has to implement, I suppose that he has been as helpful as he can be. But, like the Minister of State, the right hon. Gentleman always waits, and then says, "But look what the Government have done for shipbuilding". I need hardly say that I am all for a first-class shipbuilding industry, but other people have to be considered. They have as much right to the Government's aid as we have. Incidentally, I do not see why I should make the Government's points for them, though sometimes I enjoy doing it.
I cannot understand why all our difficulties should be submerged by this outcry about what the Government have done for shipbuilding. It would be appropriate if the Government said occasionally not only what they have done, but what management and men in the shipbuilding industry have done. There are many examples of wonderful cooperation between management and men. The Government are not the only people to have transformed shipbuilding on Tyneside and the Wear.
The other day, Sir John Hunter said that he was strongly opposed to going into the Common Market. He gave his reasons, though I do not necessarily agree with them. Apparently, he has never stated before that he had these objections. Whatever his views may be, I think that the Government and the Opposition are bound to listen and assess his reasons for making such a statement.
All three parties have expressed their views about British entry into the Common Market. It is generally agreed that it would be good for Britain to go in, provided that we do not have to pay too high a price. At a time when the Government are rushing ahead in the hope of being acceptable to the Six, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister of State an assessment covering the whole country industry by industry, but laying


special stress on the North-East coast, which employs large numbers of skilled and unskilled men, setting out those which support the Prime Minister and those which do not.
It is a matter of vital importance to the North-East if the shipping industry is not in favour of application for entry into the Common Market. Birmingham, on the other hand, has always been a lucky area. It has never suffered from the unemployment problems of Tyneside, Wearside and the rest of the North-East. Therefore, the motor car industry is in favour of entry into the Common Market.
However, when we have a debate on the matter, I will not commit myself one way or the other until I hear the views of those in industry who are most vitally concerned. Instead of talking about it in general terms, which we all do—it is not a fault of one side of the House or the other—it is about time that we had a proper assessment of what industrialists, who have to support the economy of this country and initiate the exports which have helped so much to regain a favourable balance of payments, think about the policies of the three political parties.
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give me an answer. On Tyneside, there are only two Conservative Members—[An HON. MEMBER: "Two too many."] There may be two too many, but there will be a good many "two too many" after the next General Election.
I should like to know how the Government are analysing both the economic and employment interests of the industries which are so vital to the North-East? If they wish to extend their analysis, it would be valuable.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Is the hon. Lady saying that Sir John Hunter is giving the opinion of the whole of the shipbuilding industry on whether or not we should go into the Common Market?

Dame Irene Ward: That is what I should like to know. After all, Sir John Hunter has been President of the Shipbuilders' Federation for the past 12 months. He is a very important person on the Tyneside. Therefore, I am more likely to be guided by his views on the shipbuilding industry vis-à-vis the Common Market than for other parts of the country.
It would be extremely valuable if procedure would allow us to have a debate without Front Benchers so that all Members could get some information about how those who have to keep up our export programme feel their future will be affected, provided that we are invited and accepted into the Common Market.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Dr. Gray), although he did not develop this point, talked about the cost to local authorities, and in other directions, of introducing new industries to the northeast. It has been suggested, I think by the North-East Development Council, that the Government might be able to help. The provision of roads is important in the industrial development of a development area. The depression put us a long way back, regarding schools, houses and roads, but road development has been spectacular.
It is fair to say that some of the roads were planned before the Labour Government took office, but they have gone on with the development and they have every right to feel satisfied at the progress which has been made. But this imposes tremendous burdens on local authorities. Therefore, I should like to know whether the Minister of State, in his persuasive way, can cope with the Treasury in seeing whether the development of suitable overall arrangements for introducing new industries can be met by additional grants.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) mentioned the special development areas. I am grateful to the Minister of State, because he has agreed to receive a deputation from Tynemouth early this month. Tyne-mouth has an enterprising local authority. It has done a great deal to encourage development. I am delighted to say that International Formica started on our West Churton Trading Estate, the foundation stone of which was laid before the war. That brings it into the time of the Conservative regime, so it is not only Socialist Governments which have interested themselves in the development of the area. In a special area adjoining the Tyne Tunnel we have a considerable number of well-planned factories which have been built by private enterprise. We now require the Government's support to encourage industrialists to set themselves up in these


well planned, up-to-date, modern factories.
I should now like to mention hospital development. I assume that the Minister of State is not only interested in industrial development, because he is a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the North-East. But we have hardly any convalescent provision. Only one regional hospital board has less convalescent provision than the Newcastle-on-Tyne Regional Hospital Board. It is important that we have up-to-date convalescent accommodation available, because many of our industrial workers are engaged in dangerous industries. We have developed excellent treatment for workers who have bad accidents, but it would be helpful if we could have more convalescent provision.
While I am on this subject, I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent operation of the helicopter service in relation to the North Star rig. It was remarkable. But I should also like to pay tribute to the men who work on the rig, because it must be a very dangerous industrial occupation. It goes to show that we have some magnificent people who will take every risk to try to help us develop a prosperous economy. I think that this operation by the helicopter service, and the men going back to the rig so soon after their terrifying experience, deserve a strong word of commendation, and I am delighted to have the opportunity of being able to give it.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in the area of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and I were invited to visit St. George's Mental Hospital. Over the years I have often visited this hospital, and the situation there is rather terrifying. I want to know what the Minister intends to do to ensure that sufficient money is made available to deal with the frightful over-crowding. I do not want to over-emphasise in public some of the dangers in that hospital. When the Conservative Party was in power, Ministers of Health visited it and certain improvements were made, but at the moment there is over-crowding to the extent of 350 patients.
The idea—and it was a very good one?—was to deal with the over-crowding by building villas which would make it

easier for the dedicated doctors, nurses, superintendents, and matrons, to carry out their magnificent work of administering that hospital. About eight or 10 years ago I was fortunate enough to be asked to open two villas. The authorities were told that they could have four more villas, but, because of the way in which the money is provided, the last villa will not be available until 12 years from now.
The beds in that hospital are so close together that no patient is able to have a small locker in which to keep his own possessions. There is not even a cupboard of any kind for patients to use. When they go to bed, they have to hang their clothes at the bottom of their beds. When I hear speeches in the House about trying to give people the opportunity of keeping their personal possessions near them, the thought occurs to me—and this is not a matter for purely one side of the House or the other—that we have fallen far short in ensuring that our mental hospitals are properly equipped and safe.
I want the Minister to assure me that he will try to get that 12-year period reduced. By the end of that period nearly all the patients in that hospital will have left this life, I hope for a happier one. Something must be done to help them now. What is happening there is not right, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have visited the hospital will agree with me about that.
I must not transgress——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dame Irene Ward: There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite from the North-East coast, and all that they are doing is trying to keep their Government in power. It would be much better if we could get the Government out, because then we could do a little more poking. Many of us are good at poking our own Ministers. It is much easier to poke Ministers on one's own side than it is to poke hon. Members on the other side who think that it is their business to keep themselves in power.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Consett, but I think that his Motion is too fulsome.

Mr. David Watkins: I do not.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not.
Part of the attraction of the North-East coast is that people from there are loyal, and I should not expect the hon. Gentleman to be otherwise, but he tabled a beautifully fulsome Motion and then made a number of criticisms. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of State and the Prime Minister will look at the Motion, and forget all the speeches. That is probably the Minister's attitude. We on the North-East Coast would like to see in office our own Minister of State, who would not be confused by the Prime Minister or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but would get on with doing a really good job so that we can make the necessary progress which we think is essential if we are to survive.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that the Motion was a little fulsome. That thought occurred to me for broadly the same reasons as those given by my hon. Friend; namely, that it tends to pat the Government on the back for a lot of things for which they are not entitled to be so patted.
Although I think the Motion a little fulsome, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) widened the debate to cover the whole of the Northern Economic Planning Region, because, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said, this enables those who come from the western part of the region to draw attention to Cumberland and Westmorland, an extremely important part of that region. I wish to concentrate on that part of the region, and in particular on Westmorland.
In Westmorland there is very much of a changing scene at the moment. I shall try to explain what I mean by that, but I must first tell the House that, having been round my constituency at the weekend, I have found that the one thing which has not changed, and which does not look as though it will ever change, is that my constituents are incensed about the B.B.C.'s proposed development in local broadcasting stations. Over the years my constituents have been extremely patient about the inferior quality television reception they get while being asked to pay the full licence fee. They are incensed now that all this money is to be spent on providing

an extravagant form of local broadcasting in towns and cities while they have to put up with the present second-rate reception.
I said that there was very much of a changing scene in Westmorland. I suppose that the main part of that change is coming, and will continue to come, from the construction of the M6 motorway, which is going from Carnforth in the south to Carlisle in the north. When the bulk of it is open next year it will provide many job opportunities in the area, and this will be heartily welcomed in an area which has had to face great problems.
One thing that will result from the construction of the M6 is that the Lake District will be very much easier to get to. In future millions of people will be able to visit the Lake District on a day trip. The scope of the day tripper, whom we very much welcome in that area, will be extended, and it will be possible for people who live in Birmingham and places like that to visit the Lake District for the day.
That area is, without doubt, the most attractive part of England. Although it is easy to criticise the Lake District Planning Board—and I have done so on several occasions—I think it deserves recognition for the fact that the Lake District is still largely unspoiled, and also for the fact that few people criticise the board for desecrating the area. Caravan parks occasionally mar the views in certain valleys, but, in general, the board deserves recognition for the conservation job that it has done.
The problem will be: how will the board handle the visitors who come to enjoy this incomparable scenery? There is no doubt that at the moment there are excellent tourist facilities in the area. We now have restaurants and hotels which compare with those in any other part of the country, including London. There are very good commercial facilities to cater for tourists. A problem will arise, especially at weekends, from the great rush of people using the new motorways to visit this beautiful area. There is the threat of considerable traffic chaos in the relatively narrow roads in the valleys.
The planning board faces a great dilemma in knowing what is the best way


to deal with the influx of visitors. Does it widen the roads to allow more cars to pass more quickly around the valleys and run the risk of spoiling the amenities? Does it, on the other hand, control the traffic, as has already been considered in relation to valleys such as the Langdale Valley? The consequence of control is infuriation of local residents. That has already happened. Many of them rely on visitors for their livelihoods.
We shall definitely need more car parks, and probably more caravan parks and camping sites. I hope that the latter will be placed on the verges of the national parks. I know that that is the policy of the board, and I am sure that it is the right one. I hope that we shall not have to have the physical control of traffic in our valleys and most popular tarns and lakes until there is no alternative. The moment does not come for the physical control of traffic until there is a complete breakdown in its movement.
One of the domestic problems of the Lake District arises from the short length of the season. People who run hotels, boarding houses, restaurants, cafes and other tourist accommodation face the problem of the short season. because it is difficult to obtain staff for the relatively few months of the season. Most tourist facilities close for the winter. It would be useful if future development in the Lake District helped to extend the season.
For that reason I welcome the recent proposal to construct a theatre at Windermere. It was possible to criticise its site and its area, but the concept was a good one. If we could have a Lake District festival in the early summer, and conferences at other times in this very beautiful area, it would be for the good of the Lake District as a whole.
I now turn to the northern part of my constituency, which is not so well known, scenically, as the Lake District. I refer to the Eden Valley. The region round Appleby and Kirkby Stephen, down to Penrith, faces great problems from depopulation. There was a considerable drop in population between 1951 and 1961. I have quoted figures on previous occasions showing the frightening proportion of young people leaving the area. There are some signs of improvement. There are signs that various factors

are working together to stem the outflow of population from North Westmorland. I have referred to the construction of a motorway. There is no doubt that this will generate many jobs in the area. We hope that we can have a service station constructed at Tebay. Problems have arisen about this. I have been in contact with the Ministry of Transport, and I hope that now the site is out to tender again we shall be able to get some development there.
Secondly, in North Westmorland we have a considerable expansion of the gypsum works at Kirkby Thorne, between Appleby and Penrith. Millions of pounds have been poured into the new plasterboard mills, and the new jobs created and houses erected in many villages at the west end of the Eden Valley have been of great benefit to the area.
There is an improved situation at the eastern end of the Eden valley, where most of the depopulation problems have arisen. Two new factories have been developed in the last few years, one making bobbins and the other art reproductions, which are magnificent and are being sold in the large London stores. Those two new developments have created new job opportunities in the area, but these are early days.
We also have the promise of an advance factory. There have been considerable site difficulties about this. I hope that the Minister of State will refer to the advance factory in Kirkby Thore. I know that the county council is having great problems in obtaining a site, and I hope that the Government will give it every assistance.
The final development in North Westmorland has been the establishment of the headquarters of the North Pennine Rural District Board at Appleby. I am somewhat cautious about the board. It has terrifying powers if it cares to use them— powers which my party voted against when the Bill setting up the board was in Committee. I hope that it will not turn into what I described when we debated the Orders concerning it as a bureaucratic extravagance. I was alarmed at the figures that I received from the Ministry of Agriculture last week about the staffing and the costs of the board.
I draw attention to those figures because they are very alarming. On 8th


July last I asked the Minister of Agriculture to
estimate the cost of running the North Pennine Rural Development Board over the first year …".
His reply was that it was likely to cost about £15,000 to buy the premises and that other administrative expenses, including salaries in the first year, would be about £20,000. That makes a total of about £35,000. When I asked the same Question last week I was told that the likely expenses in the first year would be £45,000. Between July and November— a mere four months—there has been an escalation of about £10,000, or about 30 per cent.
In July I asked how many staff would be employed, and to what extent that figure would be altered after the first year. I was told that, initially, it was expected to employ a secretary and a chief land agent, together with about half a dozen supporting staff—eight people—and that future staffing requirements would be reviewed as the board's work developed. That was the same day as I was told that the expenditure would not be more than £35,000. Last week I was told that already the board is employing 14 people.
I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House has just entered the Chamber, because he was Minister of Agriculture when we passed the Bill setting up these regional development boards. I am alarmed that within four months the costs of the board have escalated by 30 per cent. and the size of the staff has escalated by about 75 per cent. That is very worrying. If the board continues to operate in this way it will become the bureaucratic extravagance which has been feared.
We want worthwhile jobs created in the area. I have made a plea in Committee on the Agriculture Bill that the headquarters of the Egg Authority should be set up in Cumberland or Westmorland, and I am sure that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) in pressing that the headquarters of the Egg Authority should be placed in this area.
I want to refer to the relations between Westmorland and the Northern Economic Planning Council and ask whether this has been a valuable association for the area. In correspondence with Mr. Smith I asked him to what

extent he thought his council had been valuable to my constituency. He rightly pointed out that the planning council was an advisory body without executive functions, the fact which I had recognised. He also pointed out that in the period since the council was set up the headquarters of the rural development board had been placed in Westmorland. It is an open secret that originally it was intended that these headquarters should be in Barnard Castle or Richmond and that it was only the pressure of the local authorities in Westmorland and other organisations which led to the headquarters being placed in Westmorland. The original intention of the board had been to go to North Yorkshire.
Mr. Smith also said that an advance factory had been planned for Kirkby Stephen. I know something about that matter, and I believe that the fact that the advance factory was promised is entirely to the credit of Westmorland County Council, which did wonderful work in that respect. Mr. Smith also made other points about development area status and the S.E.T. rebate for hotels, among others, but I am afraid that I do not believe that the existence of the Northern Economic Planning Council has materially altered the situation. I suspect that even if the Council had never been set up, and if Government policy had continued in its present form, the situation would not have been altered materially and we should have had these concessions and advantages without the assistance of the Northern Economic Planning Council. Of course, without the council we should miss its glossy publications about golf courses, for example, which shower upon us in our mail.
I have not heard that Mr. Smith or the leading officials of the council have visited Westmorland very often. Perhaps they have done so and I have not heard of it, but I suspect that they do not visit Westmorland very often. One leading member, who comes from Cumberland, left membership of the council a few months ago. I suspect that he found that he had rather more important jobs to do elsewhere. Nor have I heard that the local authorities in Westmorland regard the planning council as a Delphic Oracle or father confessor. They tend to regard it as another body with which they sometimes correspond, but they go


on in much the same way as for many years past. I concede that the situation might be slightly different on the North-East coast, but I suspect that for Westmorland the Northern Economic Planning Council is something of an irrelevance.
One of the basic difficulties arose from a decision in 1964 to put Cumberland and Westmorland in the Newcastle region. Under the previous Government they went with Lancashire and Northwest England. I agree that this is a fine and difficult decision to make, but Maud got it more nearly right in his report in suggesting that a provincial area stretching from Lancashire up to the Scottish Border was more in keeping with communications and social movements. Few people in my constituency go to Newcastle or the North-East, and there is little cultural or social exchange between the areas. Much more often people travel North-South. This is possibly one reason why Cumberland and Westmorland are largely detached from the northern economic planning area and why they regard it, as I do, as something of an irrelevance.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow his arguments, because I want to return straight away to the problems of the North-East and of Tyneside, in particular.
I was interested in the observations of the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) on the question of unemployment. It was particularly significant that she adopted a far more responsible attitude to the question of unemployment in the North-East than did her hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). She knows that the unemployment is caused by the rapid decline in the traditional industries of mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said, in the last nine years over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the basic industries. That is the problem. It has existed in the

North-East for a long time, and it has faced both Labour and Conservative Governments. The difference between Labour and Conservative Governments is that the Labour Government have tackled some of the problems arising from unemployment with the Redundancy Payments Act. They have eased the burdens which fall on a family when the breadwinner is out of work, and they have also introduced earnings related benefits—another great assistance in tackling the unemployment problem which has been with the North-East for a long time. According to the Northern Economic Planning Council, the problem will be with us for a few more years because it estimates that the basic industries will continue to decline until about 1975–76.
The trouble is that, although the Government have been highly successful in attracting new firms and new industries to the area, they have not been attracted in sufficient numbers to keep pace with the decline in the basic industries, and as a consequence, I regret to say, unemployment in the area is marginally higher today than it has been for a long time. We must therefore consider the whole problem of how we are to attract more industries and more firms to the North-East.
Reading the other day about industrial development certificates, I found that 56·4 per cent. of these certificates issued in the financial year 1968–69 were granted to firms outside the development areas. If the Government's regional planning and regional policies mean anything, they must mean stricter control being exercised over the industrial development certificates. More stringent efforts should be made to ensure that a higher proportion of the certificates issued are issued conditionally upon the firm concerned establishing itself within a development area.
Last week, I was speaking to an industrialist who explained to me his labour problems. His factory is at Thames Ditton. He said that the difficulties of obtaining labour were such that he was transferring all the establishment. I naturally, but mistakenly, thought that it would be transferred to a development area, where all the Government's financial inducements would apply. But this gentleman informed me that he was merely transferring it to Ipswich, where these inducements would not apply.
When I said that he seemed to be adopting an unwise policy, he said, "We must be near our customers. We are connected with the electronics industry, and our customers are in the South-East". If this is the case, there is a very good argument here for ensuring that complete industries, or major sections of them, are transferred to the development areas, so that the related industries will be attracted there as well. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider that point.
But there may be other reasons why industrialists are not too enthusiastic about going to development areas. In the South particularly I find a great deal of misconception about the North-East. People think that it is an area of pit heaps, that it is depressed and unexciting. How wrong can they be? The North-East has the most beautiful countryside in the country. Its coast line is generally admired. The people are hard-working, willing, friendly and warm. These are the attractions of the North-East. If industrialists decide to invest their capital there, they will find it a worthwhile investment.
But it would be idle to deny that there are scars in the industrial concentrations of the North-East. There are pit heaps, of course, but they are being removed. Indeed, the Government's Industrial Development Act of 1966 is providing extremely generous grants for this purpose. They pay 85 per cent. to local authorities for this work. However, many local authorities, because they have limited financial resources, or because their available resources are earmarked for other works, cannot find the 15 per cent. margin for this essential work. I wonder whether it might not be worth while, in order to improve the environment in the North-East, for the Government themselves to take over responsibility for this vital work and pay the whole cost.
I always welcome these debates on the economic situation in the Northern region. Sometimes, there is a danger that we may overstate our case and, in explaining our problems and seeking solutions, give the impression that the area is depressed and unexciting. If we do that, we are failing to put over our message. The message is that the North-East is exciting, its people are warm and friendly,

there are beautiful national parks around, and anyone who decides to establish a firm there will find it a worthwhile enterprise and an enjoyable experience.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on selecting this subject and on his altruistic brevity, which I hope to follow.
I want to concentrate on the state of the building industry, which is one of the industries in the North which has had a boom, but at present all is not well. There is considerable unemployment in the industry in the North. It represents about a quarter of all the registered unemployed there—about 11,000 men unemployed in the summer and about 15,000 in the winter, at a moment when the industry is not doing particularly well. In 1968 the same sort of percentage obtained when the industry was doing very well.
This unemployment is twice the rate of the building industry nationally. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the problems. There is something wrong with the structure of the industry in the North. It should be helping to create jobs and not have this high unemployment. It should be used to the full for building up the whole structure of the region, as many of my hon. Friends have said.
Perhaps I might point out what I think is wrong. In the first place, the placing of council house contracts in the first nine months of this year have slumped badly; they also slumped absolutely and as a proportion of the national contracts placed for council house building. The figures for the first quarter of 1969 show contracts placed for £14½ million, compared with £29 million in 1968 and £30 million in 1967. Proportionately out of the national allocation, this is the lowest for three years. It is 4·8 per cent. of the country's allocation, compared with 5·8 per cent. in 1967 and 1968 and 5·4 per cent. in 1966.
I would request my hon. Friend to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to consider two things. Is the national allocation wrong? In other words, are too few council


houses being made available? Is insufficient provision being made for the local councils? Or are the councils themselves falling down in placing their contracts? It is obvious that if the council house contracts were running as they have run in the past they would be helping to deal with the unemployment to which I have referred. No one can say that council houses are not needed. Almost every speaker in this debate has referred, or could have referred, to this aspect of the region's problems
In other fields of public spending the impetus for the placing of contracts and public building has kept up. In education, roads, and factories the figure for the first nine months of 1969 is £66½ million, much the same as in 1967 and 1968 and much higher than in 1966. Private housing has been running at a considerable level—£25 million in 1969 and much the same in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Therefore, the extra number of mortgages which are available nationally will not have the same profound effect on the house building industry in the North as will a greater allocation and a greater speeding up of the placing of contracts for council houses.
Industrial building has been well maintained: it ran at about £35 million a year over the years to which I have referred. Other building, commercial building and so on, has been running at about £15 million. But there is great concern in the area about the number of building contracts going to contractors outside the area. This is especially true of roads. I am glad that the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is getting the benefit of the road contracts and other building activities, but it is certain that some of the areas, although the sub-contracts go to local contractors, are not getting the full benefits of the road contracts.
It is also probably true that the public investing sector—that is, the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which places nearly all its contracts locally— is doing much better than private industry. The Ministry of Public Building and Works has instituted a fact-finding investigation by civil servants to find out the position. I hope that when that report is published in a few days' time action will follow.
My own suggestions are as follows. When industrial development certificates are to be issued in the private sector, I suggest that the Ministry of Technology should write to the developer pointing out the necessity of inviting tenders from local contractors and, wherever possible, giving the work to local building and construction firms. I suggest that if this does not work, and if in the next six months there is no evidence to show that more contracts are going to local contractors, then the Distribution of Industry Act should be amended to make it compulsory to employ local contractors. Indeed, if there were not a monopoly by the party opposite of Ten-Minute Rule Bills, I should like to sponsor a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to bring about that Amendment, no doubt with Government facilities.
Secondly, I suggest that in cases where building contracts have gone outside the region the Ministry of Public Building and Works should find out why this has happened. Generally speaking, I suspect it has happened because public authorities are not using to the full negotiated contracts and selective tendering. In my own constituency I was disappointed that the Ministry of Public Building and Works, in placing a contract for a Crown building, did not even ask the biggest local building firm in the area to tender. It is true that the contract went to a national firm with local branches but it was wrong that a local firm on the Ministry's list whose works was less than a mile from the site was not asked to tender.
Thirdly, I suggest that the selective employment tax should be used in a flexible manner for the benefit of the Northern Region and should be employed as a regional premium in the building industry. In my opinion, the building industry in the development areas should be treated as a manufacturing industry. If this is too much for the Government to agree to, I suggest that the Government should look at areas in which encouragement is needed, such as in the increase of "winter building", the need for more apprentices, and relax S.E.T. in those areas.
Fourthly, I suggest that the structure of the building and contracting industry in the North-East needs to be reformed. There are probably too many small firms, not enough large firms, and not enough


specialist firms. I suggest that the trade unions, the employers' organisations and the Ministry of Public Building and Works should get together to see what is required. They could perhaps call in the I.R.C. to see whether any financial or structural alterations are needed. This is particularly true of the Housing Act, 1969, which will concentrate attention on improvement of old houses and on getting small firms to amalgamate and form themselves into consortia to cope with these activities. Finally, I suggest that in the North and in other development areas exceptions could be made to the credit squeeze, and that bank credit could be made much more easily available in the North for builders.
It is important for a building and contracting firm in the North to maintain a steady flow of contracts. It is all very well to say that the outside contractors who are employed can employ local labour and use local materials, but it is essential that the profitability of local firms should be ploughed back into the local area since this is not always the case when contractors are employed from outside. It is also essential to ensure that workers in the area should enjoy stability and promotion prospects. This again tends to be denied to them if the contracts go to outside firms.
I hope that the Minister of State in his reply will address himself to some of these matters to see what can be done.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The debate on the economy of the Northern region has been exceptionally wide-ranging. I join with other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for his choice of subject and I support the terms of his Motion. It would be easy, and indeed tempting, to make comparisons between the efforts and activities of respective Governments in this matter. There has been a unique opportunity over the past nine or ten years to watch how one Government or another deal with the problems which have arisen.
The great tribute by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett in the opening phrase of the Motion dealing with the remarkable economic progress is best reflected in the experience of people who in the early 1960s in most of the areas

in the North, and particularly in the southeast of Northumberland, saw only despair lying ahead of them in the form of the amount of unemployment that existed. It is only when one starts to make comparisons of this kind that one realises the tremendous step forward which has been taken.
Some of my hon. Friends have rightly laid emphasis on the fact that our problems are by no means over. I feel that we have merely laid the foundations on which to build in the future. We should strive to see that the targets are not only achieved but maintained.
I should like to raise three particular items at this late stage of the debate. Every possible inducement has been offered to industrialists and there has been an exceptional effort in regard to the provision of finance. The figures need no repetition. We were faced with a massive rundown of our major industries. In face of that situation, it was the Government's task to deal with the situation.
I come back to the original point which many of us have made over a number of years. Where inducements to private enterprise in the Northern Region have failed to bring about the required results, the Government in the coming months will need to look again at the question of the direction of industry. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will raise their hands in horror at this suggestion. They counter it by saying that direction of industry is bound to be followed by direction of labour. I do not think that necessarily follows since in the under-employed areas of Britain there is already a measure of direction of labour.
Every time one of my constituents goes to a coalfield in the Midlands, or buys a single ticket from Newcastle to one of the over-employed areas of the country, he is being directed by the force of economic circumstance. Therefore, it is not on the one hand an argument about direction of labour and on the other hand of direction of industry. We already have direction of labour. We need to have direction of industry to complete the basic attack on the imbalance of employment between one part of the country and another.
In my view we should forget what has happened in the past. We should


cut out all the arguments and comparisons with what has taken place in the regions and now concentrate on this vital factor.
Hon. Members have given the figures to show the loss of jobs and the number of jobs needed to tackle the high unemployment rate which we still have. In considering our strategy for the future, the direction of industry has to be high on our list of priorities. We have rightly argued, as we did in the 1964 and 1966 General Election campaigns, for publicly-owned industries. This is what we mean by the direction of industry—the injection of publicly-owned industries into South-East Northumberland and the other areas of the region.
It is clear that an intensified examination of this aspect of regional development has to take place at Government level so that we have not only an expansion of industry in the region and not only the attraction of industry but a diversification of industry similar to that in expanding areas, so that we may have a balance of employment for a long period ahead. We must look, as we are bound to look in a debate of this kind, at not merely the problem which arose in the 'sixties but the continuing problem of the post-war years, the change in the type of industries available for us in the development districts and the change of character of industry itself. Some complaint has been made that we attracted to the North-East too many industries which are capital intensive, but we have to face the fact that industry, particularly expanding industry, is much more capital intensive than labour intensive at the moment. That makes it all the more necessary to have detailed planning to get the solution to the problems of the region.
That solution is not contained merely in Ministerial briefs about the number of jobs in the pipeline or the number of jobs which have been provided, important though that is and success story though that is. The real test of our measures for the Northern Region will be finally told only when we can tell the people we represent that full employment in the Northern Region has not only arrived but is here to stay.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend

the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on having initiated the debate. This is the first occasion for 18 months that we have debated the problems of the North-East, the last occasion being when my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) introduced a similar debate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just left—

Sir Keith Joseph: There was a debate, albeit short, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) on the same subject only a few months ago.

Mr. Fletcher: The point is that we should not have to wait for the luck of the draw in the Ballot. As a matter of right, we should be able to ask the Leader of the House to provide time for us to debate this important subject.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. It concerns the problem of the 100,000 jobs which have disappeared in the last 10 years because of the run-down in the coal mining industry and the contraction of the shipbuilding and railway industries. We know the answer to the problem. It is to provide 25,000 new jobs in the Northern Region every year for the next five years.
I do not for a moment underestimate the Government's efforts to attract new industries to the region, but the fact remains that our unemployment is still twice the national average. That is why I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about publicly-financed industries in the North.
We have to make provision for public utilities, the pharmaceutical industry and the telecommunications industry and so on There is no reason why the Government, having failed to attract private industry to unoccupied Government-built factories, should not turn their attention to letting these factories to public corporations to produce goods for public utilities. This would be an answer to our problems, although not an immediate answer, because it would take a year or two to get it off the ground.
However, there are things that the Government can do immediately to attract industry to the region. For instance,


trade union officials in the building industry say that £70 million worth of contracting work inside the region goes to firms from outside it. The figure may be exaggerated, but I hope that the Government will investigate this. I do not believe that we in the Northern Region can live by taking in each other's washing, but some portion of the £70 million worth of construction work could be allocated to firms within the region.
The Government ought to do more to steel orders from the nationalised industries into the Northern Region. For example, I understand that the South of Scotland Electricity Generating Board has asked for quotations for the Inverskip power station and that the Nuclear Power Group in my area has made a tender. I understand that a decision is to be made shortly. I have a constituency interest in the group, which is composed of the Whessoe Company from Darlington, Head-Wrightsons from Tees-side and Clarke-Chapman from Gateshead.
The Government may say that they will stand on the side-lines and that whoever submits the lowest tender will get the job. But social factors as well as economic considerations must be taken into account in this situation. A tender from a group in the North-East may be marginally higher than one from outside, but we have to remember that a social consequence of work not going to the North-East might be that people would not be able to work and the State would then be paying out in other directions, in unemployment pay, social security benefits and so on. It is up to the Government to say that not only commercial considerations should weigh in a matter of this kind. They should attempt to nudge a nationalised industry into accepting a tender on the basis of social and economic as well as commercial considerations.
We have experienced this in other respects. The Steel Board located a headquarters in Scotland when we had a particularly good case for its location on Tees-side. I hope that the Government will actively intervene when massive orders of this description, running into millions of pounds, are put to tender. I hope that they will say that socially it is essential that jobs should be secured in the North-East, even though commercial considerations are against it.
I support the Motion. We thank the Government for what they have done, but our job is to nudge and press them into doing even better. I believe that as a result of the debate the Government are better informed of our point of view and will be encouraged to do even more to bring more employment to the region. We cannot in any circumstances be satisfied when unemployment in the region is twice the national average. Unemployment is the barometer of economic health and when the Government have finally reduced our unemployment to the national average, we shall be able to say that they have done a good job.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for allowing me to rise on time in this short debate.
I am also grateful, as we all are, to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for moving the Motion, but I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), after hearing the praise she gave the Government and later the many criticisms expressed on both sides, that the terms of the Motion are too fulsome. However, hon. Members on both sides have not worried too much about its terms, but have looked at the problems it has given us a chance to consider.
It is true, as some hon. Members have already said, that the debate could have developed in two directions. It could have gone along simple party political lines, each side swapping facts and figures merely to show its own regord to the best advantage, and doing its best to damn the other's efforts at providing help to overcome the serious problem that faces the region.
I am glad, like every other hon. Member, that not only did the hon. Member for Consett initiate the debate, but that he set the tone, which was followed by succeeding speakers, of not seeking to develop it along that simple but sterile line. Instead, we have had a constructive debate which has brought out the many problems and difficulties facing a most important region.
As has been said many times, it is a region with serious problems, problems of old industries, of service industries


that need renewal, of placing new industries in the area in sufficient quantities, and of providing the social structure that must exist to support a rapidly expanding industrial complex. These problems are not unique, but they are unusual in their size and in their effect on the local economy.
In particular, there is the pressing problem of the declining industries, particularly coal mining, where employment has shrunk from 143,000 in 1957 to about 58,400 in 1968, and is dropping still lower. There is also in parts the legacy of the very success the area made in taking such a prominent lead in the Industrial Revolution, which has left a great and urgent need for urban renewal. In other parts, as several hon. Members have said, there is the problem of distance, of isolation and inadequate communications. This was very well stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and was also brought out very well by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), particularly when he referred to the problem of Millom and the closure of the Cumberland pits.
In discussing this problem, we would be wrong not to remind ourselves of the work done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He it was who laid the foundations for the progress made under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Towards the end of 1963 he brought out his White Paper. Unemployment in the North-East Region was then up to 5 per cent. By 1964 it had dropped to 3·4 per cent., and in 1965, for which he can still claim credit, it had dropped to 2·6 per cent. Since then—and I am not trying to make a parliamentary point —average unemployment has risen to 4·8 per cent., the figure in November this year.
During the first five years of the Local Employment Acts—up to March, 1965— the region had the largest share of additional jobs expected to arise from the new industrial buildings then going up. It was my right hon. and learned Friend who initiated the growth zones—particularly in Tyneside, Teesside and Durham —more advance factories, more roads, the new town of Washington, and more reclamation of derelict sites; and he encouraged

the further expansion of industrial training.
The present Government expanded on the foundations that my right hon. and learned Friend had laid when they came to power in 1964. They sought to extend the help given to the development areas, particularly after 1966, when the development areas in their present form came into being. Yet it is clear to us all that much more needs to be done. Unemployment in the region is nearly twice what it was in 1966–4·8 per cent. instead of 2·6 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said, with 6 per cent. of the national population it has 10 per cent. of its unemployment.
In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby unemployment is now running at 5.6 per cent. instead of the 4·4 per cent. in 1966, and in Whitby it is 10·4 per cent. instead of 5·5 per cent. Let us consider the bigger conurbations. In Tyneside, there are now nearly 22,000 unemployed compared with 10,000 in 1966. Teesside has a similar story, with over 8,000 now unemployed as against nearly 4,000 in 1966. The figures show that in spite of all the help that has already been given the problem remains, and the harsh fact is that in March of this year there were 66,000 fewer people employed in the Northern Region than in March, 1966.
In part, the problem is one of modernisation. An example is the shipbuilding industry on the North-East Coast. Help has been given, but we have not heard sufficient, except from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, about the efforts it has itself made in restructuring its organisation and in modernisation.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to shipbuilding in his constituency. It is curious that there was an article today on one of the firms in that area in the Yorkshire Post, which showed clearly that the improvement and success which has taken place in the yard concerned was due almost entirely to the remarkable efforts of both management and men in the provision of a new Liberty ship and the outstanding success which they have achieved in selling it competitively in markets abroad.
In many other cases the need has been, not to modernise and renew old and existing industries, but to attract in ever


increasing numbers new industries into the area to replace industries such as coal mining and certain branches of the metal working industry. Nowhere in the development areas is this need more urgent than in the northern development area. New jobs calling for a wide range of ability and qualification are required if the drift from the region is to be halted.
I stress the need for new jobs for young men and women of ability, for it is a sad thing for a town—and I have seen it in my constituency, particularly in Whitby— when its most promising youngsters have to leave the district to make their careers elsewhere, often returning at the latter end of their years to retire in the place where they were born and brought up. This is a tragedy and it cannot be for the health of any town.
Both sides of the House agree on the urgent need to help the development areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made our position clear at Brighton on 10th October this year when he said:
We shall keep the development areas as they are at present defined and we shall make no alterations in boundaries unless and until in any particular case we are satisfied that immediate problems have been overcome and a firm foundation for future prosperity has been established.
But that does not commit us, when we return to power, to giving the help in precisely the same way that help is being given to areas by the Government. If one thing is clear, it is that the mere spending of more money is not the answer.
During the last year or so we have probed the Government to see what evidence they can provide about the effectiveness of the large sums of money which they have paid in grants, R.E.P., and so on, in the provision of new investment and jobs. This point was well taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North. It is interesting to note that apparently—whether because of our probing I do not know—the new Ministry of Technology is investigating this matter, as disclosed in an article in The Times Business News today.
The article goes on to say:
The newly expanded Min. Tech., with full Treasury backing, wants to take a new look at the whole cost-effectiveness of Government aid to industry. It wants particularly to see

whether the sharply rising amount spent on investment grants is having a proportionate effect in raising the level of manufacturing investment or if the money could be used with more discrimination".
That is precisely the sort of investigation which we have been seeking for many months because we believe that it is on the answers which such an investigation will disclose that we—and, I hope, the Government if they get the answer before the next election—shall be in a much better position to try to ensure that the money spent in these areas is spent to good and useful purpose in providing new jobs and repairing the social structure which goes with them.
Curiously enough, the same article talks about the Government coming round to our view which we have always expressed that investment allowances are less expensive and more effective than investment grants. Alas, it seems to indicate that the Government will not have the courage to admit their error and to be converted back to the old system. I trust that they will not be deterred. If they come to the conclusion that investment allowances are better, we shall assist them in correcting their mistakes.
Our approach must be to ensure that every penny spent—and, my goodness, the sums being spent are large—goes towards creating the maximum number of jobs and to restoring an expanding and healthy prosperity to the area. When we return to power our emphasis will swing increasingly towards creating the conditions which will attract new industry to the area. In this, good communications are vital. Much has been done—and I give the Government credit for it—but much more needs to be done. For example, Teesside still lacks a good link with the Al, which is vital to its industries and to the expansion of its port. The bottleneck at Malton is not only a deterrent to the holiday traffic flowing to and from Scarborough and Whitby, but hinders the movement of goods from the small but busy harbours of those two towns.
There is need for a variety of jobs, and, again, the Government can play their part. It was a great disappointment to the region that the Government decided to locate the new British Steel Corporation headquarters in Glasgow instead of at Teesside. I hope that in deciding the future location of any Government office or centre the claims of the


Northern area will be given special attention by the Government.
While we have accepted the present boundaries of the area in the terms laid down by my right hon. Friend, it is clear that the pattern of help will develop very much in line with the growth centre concept which we followed when in office. Had there been time, I would have shown that in "Outline Strategy for the North", the council indicates that there should be concentration on areas of major growth. Similarly, the same pattern of thinking is revealed in the Hunt Report—a concentration on areas where growth is most likely to succeed.
But, above all, whatever new services are provided, whatever the grants and allowances, the overriding need in the area is for an expanding national economy. Industrialists will not expand or risk fresh capital or train and take on new staff unless they see a market for the goods and services which such expansion will produce. The Government's regional planning machinery was set up to work within the framework of a long-term national economic plan. But we all know what happened to that plan. It is dead and long since buried. But the ingredient in it so vital to the health of the regions was that the national economy should expand by 25 per cent. in the six years to 1970. In fact, it seems likely to expand by only 14—½ per cent. That is the key to the failure to solve the unemployment problem in the area. What is needed is a greater and more rapid expansion of the national economy.
With better communications, with help to remove the industrial scars of former days, with educational and training facilities to deal with new industrial and commercial needs, with help and encouragement in attracting new industries to the area and with national confidence in the sustained expansion of our economy, the North can and will become once more a prosperous and vigorous community.

6.40 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): I would like to join those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) for the manner in which he introduced his

Motion this afternoon and for the way in which he made his presentation to the House. As one could immediately appreciate, my hon. Friend brought to our minds what the aims of regional policy are.
The Motion rightly emphasises the need for an expanding economy in the Northern Region. Expansion of the national economy, and, in particular, expansion in the development areas, is a fundamental aim of regional economic policy, not the more negative one of attempting simply to shore up areas with the most severe employment problems. The Government's regional policies are consistently directed at achieving a fairer distribution of economic activity throughout the country, at stimulating growth and at bringing into the fullest use possible under-utilised resources of the less prosperous parts of the country. This is not only in the interests of these areas and of the people who live there, but is ultimately to the economic advantage of the nation as a whole.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) spent some time in maligning the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council. I would like to advise him that the council, in common with the rest of the economic planning councils, has done a valuable service since it was set up in 1965, despite the titters of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who never believed in regional planning of any kind. They can be expected to titter when they hear about economic planning and planning councils.
Nevertheless, the report "Outline Strategy for the North", published by the council earlier this year, to which the Government a few days ago sent their reply, which will be made public today, sets out the council's views on how the region should be encouraged to develop between now and 1981. The report also recognises the changing emphasis of regional policy from the more negative prevention of decay to a positive encouragement of growth—the broad development areas were created to replace the smaller and more scattered development districts which were a concept of the party opposite.
In addressing ourselves to the amount of Government incentives available to the development areas and the fact that the


total has now risen to £270 million in the last financial year, one also appreciates the extent of this contribution to the Northern Region. Compared with the somewhat miserly £40 million in 1964–65, this has risen in the last financial year to £75 million for the Northern Region alone. This represents only the preferential assistance which the Government vouchsafe to the development areas. The corresponding total to the region in 1964–65, under a Conservative Government, was £15 million.
Nevertheless, there have been some criticisms recently, and again this evening, of the form and content of the financial assistance to development areas, particularly concerning the regional employment premium and the 40 per cent. preferential rate of investment grant. It has again been suggested that the application of these policies has been on far too much of a broad-brush basis and that they involve needless expense and the spending of more money than is strictly necessary for the new jobs created.
The first point to be made is that these two measures preferential investment grants and regional employment premium —are complementary in that one assists with capital, the other with labour costs. In combination, therefore, they are designed to attract, or in some cases to retain, both capital-intensive and labour-intensive industry for development areas. Secondly, both of these two forms of financial incentive help to raise the efficiency and competitiveness of industry. Increased industrial efficiency is vital to the future welfare of the areas and, by way of increased productivity, generates a higher level of prosperity and security for the individual and the region.
However, this is not to claim—and I, too, read The Times this morning—that the perfect balance of incentives and of assistance to industry has been struck. Some of the measures have not been in existence long enough for their impact to be precisely identified or their effectiveness fully measured. Their operation needs to be monitored very closely, and the review of the effectiveness of investment grants which is being undertaken by the Ministry of Technology will be one instrument for this purpose.
There has been reference to the selective employment premium and, perhaps,

a little confusion in the debate about what has been the effect of the withdrawal of the premium from the development areas from 1970–71 to fund the new intermediate areas. This was the most simple of the measures applied to the development areas to withdraw. Despite its withdrawal, it still leaves the development areas with a massive preferential, especially in the form of R.E.P. of 30s. a week and the 20 per cent. differential rate of investment grant. The retention of these things should safeguard very considerably the development areas against the problems which could be created as the result of the classification of intermediate areas.
A good deal has been said during the debate about what regional policies are achieving for the Northern Economic Planning Region. I must point out, first, that it was not until 1966, under the present Government, that the whole of the Northern Region was made a development area, and in November, 1967, further stimulus was given to industrial development in parts of the development area likely to be particularly severely affected by pit closures, by giving the employment exchange areas concerned special development area status, carrying with it additional incentives to incoming industry.
My colleagues have been concerned about industrial development certificates and the policy. A very rigorous I.D.C. policy is applied by the Ministry of Technology, as previously was applied by the Board of Trade, to areas outside the development areas. The net result has been that the area of factory space covered by I.D.C. approvals in the North in 1968–11·9 million sq. ft.—was the highest since the industrial development policy was introduced in 1948. I.D.C. approvals since 1964 represent an average per year of some 20,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry over this period of five years. This makes no allowance for the increase in other fields of employment.
The measure of success of the policy is also to be found in the fact that since the beginning of 1966 more than 160 firms new to the region have established or taken the decision to establish projects in the North. By comparison with the record of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they were in office, the advance factory programme


has been accelerated by the Government and, in all, 60 advance factories have been approved for the region since 1964, the latest at Brandon last week under the "rolling" programme for the special development areas approved in 1967.
The number of advance factories announced this year alone stands at 18, which is two more than the total approved during the whole period from 1960 to 1964. Forty-seven of these factories have been let and only two completed advance factories have not yet been allocated to industrialists.
With the special emphasis on new industrial development, one tends to forget the part that the old industries can still continue to play in the regional economy. Despite massive reductions in employment opportunities, coal mining will, when the modernisation and rationalisation programmes have been completed, become more economically viable and will continue to play for a long time to come a predominant part among the fuel industries.
The British Steel Corporation's decision to build a high-capacity oxygen-steel making plant at Lackenby and the proposal to develop a major ore-terminal at Redcar is evidence of the continuing importance of the Northern steel industry to the regional, and national, economy.
As to the outlook for shipping, shipyards in the Northern Region are to be congratulated on their good order books, on such achievements as the successful lines of standard vessels developed on the Wear and the number of ships which, in the last year or so, have been delivered ahead of time. This has been outstanding, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) pointed out. A considerable degree of reorganisation has taken place and is continuing. There has been a marked improvement in industrial relations in the industry.
The future of the industry obviously depends on its future competitiveness in the world shipbuilding markets. There is still much to be done in applying modern techniques but, with the help of Government assistance under the Shipbuilding Industry Act, a good start has been made in the Northern Region, if it is not fair to say that the industry has been rescued. My right hon. Friend the

Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is entitled to be proud of the part that the industry plays in terms of employment not only in Sunderland, but over a much wider area.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the performance of the shipbuilding industry in Sunderland, which has been particularly successful, has been achieved with minimal Government assistance and without interference or restructuring from the Government?

Mr. Urwin: I was speaking of Government assistance generally. I agree that in the merger at Sunderland neither firm has, as yet, made application for Government assistance. However, if one looks at the record generally one finds that the Northern shipyards have benefited very considerably from Government assistance. Indeed, had it not been for the £1 million which the Government invested in Fur-ness the unemployment figures for that area—for Hartlepools and Teesside— would have been substantially higher.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose——

Mr. Urwin: I will not give way. I was left less than 20 minutes in which to reply to the many questions that were put to me. On another occasion I would be only too pleased to discuss this matter at length with the hon. Gentleman.
Many questions were asked about training. A new Government training centre was opened at Meadowfield only a fortnight ago and the annual output of trainees from training centres in the region is now well over 2,000 a year. Generous grants are available to new and expanding firms towards the cost of training labour, as well as grants towards the cost of machinery and equipment purchased by industry for use in training bays or centres. The Government are also stimulating improvement through industrial liaison centres established by the Ministry of Technology and I was able to announce last Friday the establishment of a marine industries unit based on Newcastle University.
A considerable amount of comment has been made in the debate about the tremendous improvement that has been taking place in communications in the Northern Region. One may be excused if one takes pride in the amount of capital


investment that has been put into, for example, motorways. We have the Durham Motorway, the Tyne Tunnel and the Penrith By-Pass all completed. Work which, altogether will cost £43 million is in progress on the A19. A new spine road is being built through the Northumberland coalfield. Work is in progress on 50 miles of the M6 in the western part of the region and Workington and West Cumberland will soon have a good road link with the motorway at Penrith.
We are concerned not only with roads. I remind the House that when we speak of consolidation and the need to provide a background for further economic development in the region we have in mind public expenditure on houses and schools as well as other essential social services. While over the four financial years 1965–66 and 1968–69 inclusive public expenditure on new construction in the United Kingdom as a whole rose by about one third, it doubled in the Northern Region. In no other region did the rate of public expenditure on new construction grow at so high a rate. Compared with 1965–66, expenditure has risen from £83 million to £160·6 million, and this expenditure includes increased investment in many spheres, including roads, dwellings, education, hospitals and environmental services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) referred to the clearance of dereliction and the need to improve environment. It is worth mentioning that 85 per cent. grants are available towards the cost of derelict land reclamation schemes in the Northern development area and that this has led to an upsurge in clearance activity in the region. These rapid strides in reclamation and clearance are being made with the full co-operation of local authorities. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about regional policies, they should bear in mind the vivid comparison that can be made between their policy, which included the withdrawal of the payment of grant for clearance of dereliction between the whole period 1951 to 1959.
The hon. Member for Scarborough, Whitley (Mr. Michael Shaw) asked me to note that the debate had been conducted on an amicable footing and that acrimony had not crept in. Evidently, the hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of

his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) who, speaking early in the debate from the benches opposite, made a forthright contribution about the feeling that existed over Government policy towards regional economic planning, with special reference to the Northern region.

Sir K. Joseph: Hear, hear.

Mr. Urwin: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, then I remind him of what he said in January of this year about regional economic policy and its application specifically in Sunderland. Questioned by Conservative councillors in Sunderland about what the Conservatives would do if they were returned to power—it will be a long time before we have another Conservative Government— the right hon. Gentleman is reported as having answered this question from a councillor:
… but the unemployment situation in the town is no different from what it was in 1963. Can you assure us that confidence will return this time, as it did not in 1963?
by saying:
The party has learned from its mistakes".
Has the right hon. Gentleman learned from his mistakes?

Mr. Jopling: Has the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Urwin: They were not as big as the right hon. Gentleman's.
For example the Conservatives did not appreciate the world competition in shipbuilding or the run-down in the coal trade. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is reported on the occasion to which I referred as having said that a short period in opposition each generation or so could be a healthy thing for a party; that is, so long as it was not too long because it was possible for its members to take a detached view of the situation.
The Conservatives forgot to plan for the school-leaving age bulge that would arise after the 1950s. That led to the high rate of unemployment among school leavers in 1963. Fortunately, we do not have as high a rate of unemployment among this group now. Despite anguished pleas from youth employment committees and local authorities throughout the Northern Region, nothing was


done. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which abolished dereliction grants for the whole period 1951-59 and scarcely laid a brick on industrial estates in the Northern Region between 1951 and 1964.
Despite all this, hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that they will not vary the development areas if and when they are returned to office. They did nothing to stimulate economic development in the Northern Region and when the hon Member for Scarborough and Whitley refers to his right hon and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) having been sent to the Northern Region to see the full effects of the situation— he was, of course, sent far to late in the day—we should remember that he prescribed more roads. The road development that has taken place in the area has occurred under Labour rule. It has continued at a far greater pace than anything the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone prescribed at the time. Our policies will continue.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Mr. Michael Shaw rose——

Mr. Urwin: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only a few seconds in which to complete my remarks.
In any event, it was the hon. Gentleman who said that the Conservatives would not vary the existing development areas. However, neither he nor his hon. Friends have said——

It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government Business).

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT AND STATUS OF ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT

7.1 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'Ulster Defence Regiment' and insert—
'Local Territorial Force (Northern Ireland)'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we may discuss also Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'Ulster Defence' and insert—
'Northern Ireland Fencible'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, leave out 'Ulster Defence Regiment' and insert—
'Local Territorial Force (Northern Ireland)'
and Amendment No. 11, in Title, line 1, leave out 'Ulster Defence Regiment' and insert—
'Local Territorial Force (Northern Ireland)'.

Miss Devlin: I disagree with those hon. Members who may feel that this is a minor point which does not merit a great deal of discussion. In view of the action of the Government, of leaders of the Government and of the Labour Chief Whip, I cannot be blamed if I am given to understand that I and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) stand alone in this House as the only two hon. Members against whom pressure cannot be brought. I am not inferring that hon. Members who have supported us in the past and who will do so tonight will submit to such pressures. I merely say that pressures will be brought to bear.
I wish to give my justification for talking at length about this important matter. There are many reasons why I feel that the Title must be changed. I cannot accept assurances from the Ministry as to the relevance of the Title. The first and most minor point is one of geographical accuracy. Wide newspaper publicity has been given to the various


proposals to effect a change in the name of the regiment, and most hon. Members will suppose that my greatest objection to the Title is that Ulster is nine counties, but that is a minor point.
It is obvious that Ulster consists of nine counties, that it is one of the four provinces of the island known as Ireland, four provinces which once represented the four kingships, and that three of the counties within the Province of Ulster, that is, Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal, lie within the jurisdiction of the 26-county Irish State and are not the responsibility of this Parliament.
However, if the British Government and the Secretary of State for Defence wish to add to the stupidity and blundering which has occurred in dealing with the Bill by committing a classic Irishism and calling the force the Ulster Defence Regiment, which would be an alien or hostile force within one-third of the territory it claimed to represent, then that is the business of this Government and of the Secretary of State for Defence. On that basis it can do little more than provide facile copy for newspaper reporters remarking on the quaintness of the Irish situation. It will be excellent material for tomorrow morning's cartoons.
When the more serious consequences of this force, if it is to be established, are realised, it will be one of the lighter sentences or paragraphs in the tomes of history to be written about this period, and this will be one blunder in a line of blunders made by the British Government in dealing with the Irish question.
But I have a number of much greater objections. The first is the use of the word "Ulster". To hon. Members, Ulster means either the Northern Ireland State or the Province of nine counties. They are not worried which term is used, but it should be recognised that, since the establishment of the Northern Ireland State, there has been sustained quarrelling about the proper title to be used to describe that State. Commonly, the Northern Ireland area is described, in a coat-trailing manner, as Ulster by people associated with extremist Protestant thinking. Even the Ulster Farmers' Union has its overtones of Protestantism.
The use of the word "Ulster" by members of the Northern Ireland Government and by this House is nothing more than a

sectarian gibe. Ulster is a notion closely associated with aggressive Orange organisations in the Northern Ireland area, many of whose slogans and legends incorporate the Ulster title. Bluntly, when an organisation is described as an Ulster organisation, it is generally accepted as a Protestant organisation and, as I will later explain, a Protestant extremist organisation.
The Secretary of State may find this tiresome, and a futile exercise in semantics, but he will have to learn what he has not yet cared to discover, that it matters to the people of Northern Ireland, in whose lives slogans, titles, flags and emblems play a very important rôle. The adoption of the present title must be taken in conjunction with the actions of the Northern Ireland Government, which have been supported by the Secretary of State for Defence and by this Government. Advertisements and statements on television about an Ulster Defence Regiment, which, as yet, does not exist, have already been mentioned
The Government intend to push through legislation against the wishes of several hon. Members, against the wishes of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster—a body which exists both in this country and in Northern Ireland—against the wishes of most of the Opposition parties in Northern Ireland, and in direct collusion with the Ulster Unionist Government. The Bill is being laid before the House by a Labour Government in direct collusion with the Tories.
I will try to explain the sectarian appeal and use of the word "Ulster". If the name of this force remains the Ulster Defence Regiment, the number of Catholics who will join it will be negligible. Hon. Members may infer from this that Catholics are unduly sensitive about titles. The Secretary of State seems to be unaware of why Catholics in Northern Ireland distrust anything which bears the name "Ulster Defence", or anything approximating to it.
Let us take four organisations in the North of Ireland. They are the Ulster Defence Committee, the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee, the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force and the Ulster Special Constabulary. The first three, by


the evidence of their own constitutions, are avowedly extremist Protestant organisations. It is fair to say that all four have been very closely associated with the disturbances in the North of Ireland.
I take as an example the constitution of the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee, which is also the constitution of the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force. I should like, with permission, to quote some extracts from the constitution of those bodies, because I believe them to be relevant to the naming of this new force, the Ulster Defence Regiment. I quote from the constitution:
The Ulster Constitution Defence Committee and the Ulster Protestant Volunteers which it governs is one united society of Protestant patriots pledged by all lawful methods to uphold and maintain the Constitution of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom as long as the United Kingdom maintains a Protestant Monarchy under the terms of the Revolution Settlement.
To continue:
The Ulster Constitution Defence Committee has a membership of 12"—
I remind the Committee that I am quoting from the constitution itself—
originally called together by the Rev. Ian Paisley. This Committee is the governing body of the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Divisions and the only official voice for the movement… The Ulster Protestant Volunteers take their name from the Parliamentary Division in which they are situated. No one who has ever been a Roman Catholic is eligible for membership. Only those who have been born Protestants are eligible for membership.
To continue:
Each meeting of both the Ulster Committee and the Ulster Protestant Volunteer divisions must be opened with a reading from the Authorised Version of the Bible. Each member must be prepared to pledge his first loyalty to the Society, even when its operations are at variance with any political party to which the member belongs.
The importance of that statement will be seen a little later in my remarks.
The constitution continues:
The body of representatives pledge to maintain the Constitution at all costs when the authorities"—
the authorities being the Northern Ireland Government, police force or otherwise—
act contrary to the constitution".
This undoubtedly would mean in the view of the Constitution Defence Committee.

The body will take whatever steps it thinks fit to expose such unconstitutional acts.
From what I have quoted it may be supposed that I speak of a cranky organisation whose activities would not seem to be of great significance. But the Cameron Report, in paragraph 220, on page 88, tells of the difficulty in discovering that many members of the Special Constabulary were members of the bodies I have just described. Complaining of the lack of information about these organisations, the Cameron Commission concluded that there was a very substantial overlap of members. If hon. Members find this irrelevant, I would point out that we have been informed by the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Government that the bones of this new Ulster Defence Regiment will be the existing Ulster Special Constabulary. It is, therefore, important that we should be aware of the facts and should remember that Lord Cameron concluded that there was a considerable overlap between the members of the B Specials and the members of the Ulster Protestant Volunteer Force.
During last weekend I had a number of investigators speak with members of these bodies and with members of the Special Constabulary. They took statements from some of these people indicating that far more than half the members of the Special Constabulary are members of the Ulster Protestant Volunteers or the Ulster Volunteer Force, the latter being a front for the former. So it may well be that the initial impression formed by most of us that the new regiment, according to the Bill, would be nothing more than the old extremist organisation in a new guise, is much nearer fact than right hon. Members will give us credit for.
I give a few practical examples of how closely the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee have been associated with military style activities in the past. During the first days of the trouble in August this year the Chairman of the Ulster Defence Constitution Committee, the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley, called on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Major James Dawson Chichester-Clark—[An HON. MEMBER: "Squire of Moyola."] Yes, Squire of Moyola and a constituent of mine. This is what he told the Prime Minister.
I do not think that this is out of order, Mr. Gourlay, since it is important that


I try to establish the links between what is now an illegal force and a force of unknown strength that is liable to become the bones of the Ulster Defence Regiment——

7.15 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the composition of the regiment. We are discussing whether the name should be changed. I am trying to find in the latter remarks of the hon. Lady some relevance to the Amendment.

Miss Devlin: I am trying to establish the relevance of what I am saying by saying that the Ulster Defence Regiment will attract a number of people to the force. I am doing so by illustrating other bodies in Northern Ireland who bear similar titles and the kinds of persons who join that force. I seek to establish to the Committee that this title would attract the same kind of person to the force.
If I may continue, the Rev. Ian Paisley called on the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. He told him how he, Mr. Paisley, was prepared to mobilise 10,000 armed men of the Ulster Volunteer Force and place them at the service of the Government. One may imagine how many people in the North of Ireland felt, first at hearing that the Rev. Ian Paisley could go along to the Prime Minister and state that he was prepared to mobilise 10,000 men; secondly, that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland did not immediately slap him in chains for having 10,000 armed men; and, thirdly, and much worse, that afterwards the Rev. Tan Paisley told the Press that his offer would be considered.
It was widely believed in the North of Ireland that a substantial minority of the Northern Ireland Cabinet were not at all averse to Mr. Paisley's suggestion. Members of the Committee will know that the necessity of mobilising the Ulster Volunteer Force was avoided by activating many of the same men as the Ulster Special Constabulary.
The Committee may think that I am still talking only in terms of the title and that this is just a matter of semantics. But let me give one more example. One day in August Mrs. John Callagher, in the town of Armagh, switched on her radio and heard that the Ulster Special Constabulary had been mobilised. Before

that day was over Mrs. Callagher's husband was shot dead by the members of the Tynan platoon of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
The Ulster Special Constabulary at this point in time are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. He is responsible for the Title of the Bill; he is responsible for the people who will be enrolled in this force. He is also responsible for the fact that the members of the Tynan platoon of the Ulster Special Constabulary are on active duty in Northern Ireland, and that not one of them has been brought to trial for this man's death.
Let me have no assurances from the Secretary of State that this Title does not mean that this type of person will be in the proposed regiment. I can accept no assurance of that kind, because it is inherent in the very Title that these people will join this kind of force.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: While not accepting anything of what the hon. Lady says about the B Specials, going back over her argument, does she not admit that it would be better now that Roman Catholics in the community should be encouraged to join the new force and use their influence in it, so that we can look forward to a better, more prosperous and more charitable future in Northern Ireland?

Miss Devlin: As to whether I would ask anyone to join this force, I think that I have made my attitude quite clear. I am pointing out, as a matter of fact, that existing bodies in the North of Ireland bear the title "Ulster Defence" for a sole purpose. I will continue to point out that purpose. Then I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks for a moment that any sane person should be asked to join a force which is so closely tied with forces which have been the downfall, destruction and death of his father. I will continue, and the hon. Gentleman can answer afterwards, if he wishes.
Following the fatal shootings in Armagh and Belfast, the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee further publicised its name and its aims. By that time, full responsibility for the security of Northern Ireland was in the hands of the G.O.C. there. Therefore, I presume that the Secretary of State is fully aware


of what I am about to describe. It will be interesting to hear how he reconciles his concern about the advertisement and the activity of the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee with the title which he has chosen for the new regiment.
The body which I am now discussing is not the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee. On public walls and on factory notice boards throughout Belfast, posters were plastered by the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee headed with the slogan, "For Defence of Ulster". What is the Secretary of State setting up the Ulster Defence Regiment for if it is not for the defence of Ulster? At that point, we have an identical purpose—for the defence of Ulster. A recruitment poster headed with this slogan asked for all able-bodied Protestant men prepared to maintain the Constitution by force to take themselves to No. 25 Shaftesbury Square, Belfast, there to enrol and receive instructions. During the days which followed, groups of men flocked to that address and were enrolled. In the factories, the recruitment posters generally were accompanied by posters by another "Ulster Defence" force calling for the forcible expulsion of all Catholic workers.
It is against that background that Ulster defence forces of various sorts have acquired their reputation. While the title of the proposed regiment carries the connotations which I have described, with the Ulster Constituton Defence Committee as the successor of a variety of other clandestine, terrorist groups such as the Reprisal Society, the Protestant Defence Committee and the Ulster Defence Force, in the minds of people in Northern Ireland "Ulster Defence" means, "Kick the Papists".
If the Secretary of State really thinks that a 50-year-old link between the repression of Catholicism and Catholic people and Ulster defence has meant the repression of Catholics, how does he expect a solitary person to wipe away that idea in a day? Does he expect any Catholic to join one more "Kick the Papists" organisation?

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North): Is not the hon. Lady totally opposed to any forces of this nature? Therefore, is not

her quibbling about the name sheer impudence?

Miss Devlin: With respect to the Chair, I consider that anything said by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is sheer impudence.
The Secretary of State must agree that the interpretation of "defence" which he puts on the proposed regiment is different in the way that I have pointed out from the interpretation which people in Northern Ireland put on "Ulster Defence".
To move on to his idea of defending Ulster, emphasising the need for defence in Northern Ireland encourages everything that is wrong in the area. Northern Ireland's history of sieges, its apartheid mentality and the idea of the wolf at the gate all stress the notion of an overwhelming need for external and internal defence. This reflects the history of the area, not only in the past 50 years but over the last 200 years, during which combinations of landowners and the leaders of extremist organisations such as the Orange Order have been urging the need for repressive measures against Catholics and dissident Protestants.
It was the late Randolph Churchill who coined the phrase
Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right.
The British Government now seriously intend to give the area, with its history of crazed militaristic activities, an army of 6,000 men with which to play. They are actively assisting in the war games of Northern Ireland when they send such a force into an area which has seen too many guns and too many armed sides defending this, that or the other in the past.
Do the British Government think that the answer to the problem is 6,000 armed men? When we have the Ulster Defence Regiment, let there be no doubt who will be the enemy. If it is true to the history of bodies established for the so-called defence of Ulster, the regiment will be employed not only against Catholic people but against the critics of the Northern Ireland Government. In Northern Ireland, "Ulster Defence" does not mean the defence of the territory claimed by the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, "Ulster Defence" means the defence of the party of hon.


Gentlemen opposite. It has never meant anything else.
I am at a loss to understand why the proposed force is not to be called "Local Territory Force (Northern Ireland)". Why has the Secretary of State chosen to go against the pattern of legislation in this House? Since the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this House has never used the name "Ulster" in its legislation. It has always referred to "Northern Ireland". If the tradition of this House is to be broken, surely we are entitled to some justification for it from the Secretary of State.
We have the fact too, that in the past there has existed a territorial force in Northern Ireland. There is no reason why we should now be sitting here discussing the creation of an entirely new body when, if what the Secretary of State really wants is a territorial force, he can use the existing law and increase the existing territorial forces.
I have a question which I wish to put to the hierarchy of the Labour Party— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I mean, of course, to the Secretary of State. Hon. Members do not like me referring to the Labour Party heirarchy. I did so quite jovially, because their authoritarian attitude towards their Members reminded me of the attitude of the Catholic Church.
7.30 p.m.
I will state for the Secretary of State of Defence why the Bill was called the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill and I should like to ask him a few questions on it. The first is: who suggested it? We have been told that consultations took place with the Northern Ireland Government. The Committee has a right to know exactly what those consultations were and how much of the Bill was at the suggestion of hon. Members of the House of Commons——

The Deputy Charman: Order. I must remind the hon. Lady that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the Amendment which she is proposing.

Miss Devlin: I will, therefore, not refer generally to the Bill, but purely to the title. Who suggested that it be called the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill? Did the Secretary of State, not having had any previous experience of passing legislation

called Ulster, suddenly decide that a change of air was good for it?
Did the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland decide that Ulster Defence Regiment would help the member of the B Specials, who are about to be driven out of their positions, to accept that there was to be a new force?
Will the Secretary of State for Defence admit honestly to hon. Members that he has been duped by the Stormont Government, because, being unaware of what Ulster defence meant, being unaware of the history of Northern Ireland and the connotations of Ulster defence, he thought it a minor point and, feeling that there were bigger points which he would have to stick out for, allowed the Stormont Government very shrewdly to suggest Ulster Defence Regiment and accepted it?
I find it most depressing that a supposed Socialist Party—modern Labour in search of its soul—can enter into what the Home Secretary describes as though it was a binding contract with a junta of politicians, whose views make the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) look like a "Left" Liberal. The fact that this bargain has been entered into is indicated because, from among hon. Members from Northern Ireland on the benches opposite, there was only one Amendment, and that Amendment has not been selected for discussion. I should be out of order in referring further to that Amendment.
Hon. Members opposite are very happy with the Bill. They have got something there. They know, as well as I do, what Ulster defence means. They are very happy to have it mean that, because they are the descendants of the people who gave it those connotations. They are happy to see it, because it deals with the problem of facing up to the facts and saying that there can be no force in Northern Ireland like the Ulster Special Constabulary. It means that they can have the B Specials back under one of two forces. They will feel very happy and very much at home in the Ulster Defence Regiment because, as I will show later in the debate, its functions, like its title, smell of Unionist Government junta politics, winding this House by the tail, and of the fooling of my right hon. Friends into thinking that the Unionist


Government had any idea or intention of changing their mind or their rôle.
Therefore, I should like to hear from the Secretary of State for Defence whether his advisers were aware of the connotations of this title before deciding to use it, whether they were fully informed of the activities of like-named bodies, whether they were aware of the existence of like-named bodies, whether they made any investigation or consulted any persons representing interests other than those of the ruling junta in the North of Ireland, and, if such negotiations took place with other bodies or persons, who they were or what they were and whether this title was selected by Whitehall or was urged on them by the Stormont Government?
I should point out to the Secretary of State for Defence that a Stormont Minister boasted that it was their idea during an Orange Order meeting last week. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State for Defence now realises that Stormont have fooled him into taking this title, whether he will now take steps to extricate himself from the mess into which he has got the House of Commons, whether he will consult fully with other interests in Northern Ireland before proceeding with the title, and, in the light of the foregoing, whether he will support my Amendment or, at worst, indicate clearly the freedom of hon. Members of his party to vote as they wish.
I should also like to ask what investigations were made concerning the possibility of employing already existing powers to extend the Territorial Force in the North of Ireland and why it was decided to proceed by creating a new and obnoxiously named regiment rather than the more simple procedure of amending or revivifying existing legislation on the Territorial Force?
I do not think that my right hon. Friend can answer all those questions to my satisfaction, and I do not think, in view of the information that I have given to him, that he can seriously ask me to accept anything other than his acceptance of the Amendment.

Sir Douglas Glover: I shall not speak for long. Having listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I despair of trying to solve the

problems of Northern Ireland. No one in this House could accuse me of being partisan in this matter. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows that I got into serious trouble after complimenting him on a speech that he made about the problems of Northern Ireland. Therefore, although it is difficult to speak objectively in this matter, I think I can speak as objectively as any hon. Member in the Committee.
What worries me about the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is that she is all the time harking back. There is a real determination here and in Northern Ireland to look forward to the future and to try to solve a great many of the problems that have confronted Northern Ireland for many years. The hon. Lady made her speech with great sincerity, but it worries me in trying to arrive at a solution to the problem, because whatever is suggested she views with the greatest suspicion. I am not criticising the hon. Lady for taking that view. The feeling that she has expressed is a healthy and normal condition, which I understand. However, I put it to her—she will probably appreciate this more than some of her not so beautiful hon. Friend's opposite or some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee—that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
So what is in a name? What is important about the new force is that it does the job which the people of Ireland want it to do. To spend a great deal of time on the name is not in the best interests of the Committee or of the problem in Northern Ireland.
In my innocence I have been in Her Majesty's Forces. I know that there were many regiments which were proud of a title preceded by the word "Ulster", The same applies to this new force. Whether one likes it or not, the mass of the people think of the Six Counties as Ulster. I know there is a great controversy among hon. Member opposite, who say that Ulster consists of nine counties. But the United States of America is generally termed, in ordinary conversation, "America", although everybody knows that Canada is also in North America and that there is Central America and South America——

Mr. Eric Lubbock: As one who was brought up in Canada, perhaps I might point out to the hon.


Gentleman that he will grossly offend his Canadian friends if he refers to the United States of America.

Sir D. Glover: I agree, but that does not stop millions all over the world, whether it offends people or not, from referring to the United States as America.
The same applies here. A title has been chosen with, I believe, no ulterior motive, which would generally, especially in the Armed Forces—we should not forget that the new regiment will be part of Her Majesty's Forces—be understood as an Army title. What surprises me is that when a constructive effort is being made to overcome much of the argument and criticism of a force which has been greatly maligned this line should be taken.
This force, which has been designed to overcome the suspicions and prejudices which are thought to exist in Northern Ireland towards the old force, has been entitled the Ulster Defence Regiment. First of all, many people think of the Six Counties as Ulster, so the word "Ulster" is reasonable. So is the word "Defence". It is designed for the defence of Northern Ireland, although I know that there are arguments on both sides.
We should get away from fruitless argument about the name and spend more time on the constitution of the regiment and its officering so that we can try to remove the strong fears of many people in the Six Counties about what the regiment will consist of after recruitment and what its rôle will be. I believe that the present name flows easily off the tongue and expresses broadly the regiment's purpose. It is not offensive unless one is deliberately seeking offence. It is a reasonable name, so the Committee should reject the Amendment——

Miss Devlin: Logically, since the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is nothing particularly important about the title—[Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to be nodding in agreement. Surely, therefore, the most logical thing to do, since I am making a strong case for people who feel strongly about the title —and since the argument is that the title does not matter—would be to call it the "Local Territorial Force (Northern Ireland)", and leave it at that?

Sir D. Glover: I said that I did not want to detain the Committee long because there are far more substantial Amendments to come. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that when one is forming a military force it is important that the title gives it some credence in the minds of ordinary people. If one started using the term "Fencible" as is suggested in another Amendment, 99 per cent, of the population would not know what it meant, because it is years since the title was used. The hon. Lady would call it the "Local Territorial Force (Northern Ireland)", which will not stick in people's minds——

Mr. Michael McGuire: But at least it will not stick in their craws.

Sir D. Glover: It is not a title which will make sense. One would have to be a senior wrangler to remember it.
For those purely technical reasons, and since there are more important matters, I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support this Amendment, because it in no way conflicts with Amendment No. 13, my Amendment, which we are discussing with it. I favour both Amendments, and not only for the reasons given in an excellent speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), upon which I should like to congratulate her. Such speeches are rarely heard in this House. It was not only long but carefully reasoned and very well delivered.
I support the Amendment for reasons which the Secretary of State gave on Second Reading. He said:
The Bill … deals with one of the most sensitive aspects of the present problem in Northern Ireland …
but it is dealing with those problems in a most insensitive way and a way calculated to increase the difficulties.
My right hon. Friend also said that the Bill was intended to make
…a contribution to peace in Ireland as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 1319.]
In my submission, it will not do so as it stands but may tend in that direction if these Amendments are made. Therefore, for the reasons which the Secretary


of State himself gave, the Government should accept either or both of these Amendments. Of course, the Government can hardly accept both, since they both deal with the peculiar name of this proposed regiment. But they should accept one of them.
Ireland is divided and six counties are called Northern Ireland, while the three which are also part of Ulster are situated in Southern Ireland. The Bill will defeat its own aim by tending to increase the differences and to destroy possible peace in that island. Ulster has nine counties and Northern Ireland has six. The Bill trespasses upon the constitutional territory of the Irish Republic by purporting to legislate for the whole of the nine counties. It is called the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. There is no ground for calling it such. It is likely to increase the discord and the number of disturbances in the island.
For those reasons, among others, I support both Amendments and leave it to the Government, in their good sense, to choose which they will adopt as relevant and most appropriate to the structure of the Bill.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. and learned Member is seeking to point out geographical inaccuracies. Will he not contemplate a further inaccuracy, in that the southern part of Ireland, commonly referred to in international circles either as Eire or as Ireland, has only 26 counties out of 32?

Mr. Hughes: I am afraid that the hon. Member is just as mixed up as was the Minister about the geography or topography of the island. If the Government had realised that Northern Ireland covered only six counties out of the nine and that the three others were the territory of the Irish Republic, they would not have named the Bill in such a way; nor would they have named the regiment as it has been named. I am obliged to the hon. Member for suggesting that line of thought, and for that reason also I strongly support both Amendments.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: In order not unduly to raise the temperature I do not propose to refer at great length to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who proposed the Amendment—except

to say that it should be treated with the disgust that it deserves.
In passing, the hon. Lady mentioned that a man had been shot during the troubles in the city of Armagh. I, as much as or possibly more than anyone else, want to see whoever did that deed brought to justice. At the moment there is no proof who did it, but I want to see that person brought to justice, as I want to see everybody who commits acts of violence brought to justice, at this or any other time.
The Bill has a good Title, and the title of the regiment is a good one, which will engender a great deal of pride among people in that part of the world, who appreciate the worth of the military connotations of the name "Ulster". Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.
Also in passing, I suggest that the word "Territorial" contained in the Amendment may not commend itself to the Government, for reasons upon which I shall not dwell. The world "Ulster" is offensive to no one, except, perhaps, to the hon. Lady. I suspect that there are very few other people in Northern Ireland who are offended by it. I doubt whether it is a talking point in Lecky Row or the main street of Cookstown. I do not think that much sleep is being lost there. At least, that was the case until a few minutes ago, when the hon. Lady made her speech.
I do not think that the speech made by the hon. Lady in condemnation of the new force will do it much harm, because nowadays it is widely thought that condemnation by the hon. Lady is the kiss of life.

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin rose——

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I shall give way from now on to anyone who has a relevant point to make. Those who fulminate against this title——

Miss Devlin: Would the dishonourable and ungallant Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. If the hon. Member is not prepared to give way other hon. Members must remain seated.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. The hon. Lady was heard


to say, "Would the dishonourable Gentleman give way?". Surely she should be asked to withdraw that remark.

The Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Lady did use the word "dishonourable" she must withdraw it.

Miss Devlin: I did say "dishonourable and ungallant". I withdraw the statement, but I ask to be allowed to keep the sentiment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am relieved that the hon. Lady feels like that about me. I should feel very disturbed if she felt any other way. I suspect that, with certain exceptions, those who are opposed to this name for the regiment are opposed to the whole concept of the force. There may be others. There may be some hon. Members opposite—more than a few— who, I suspect, merely take this line over the name in the hope that there is more than one way of killing a cat.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said in the Second Reading debate, we do not hear of many people refusing to accept milk from the Ulster Dairies, or refusing to travel by the Ulster buses. I do not think—for all that the hon. Lady may have suggested—that all the drivers or conductors of those buses are Protestant extremists, or that the Ulster Society for the Protection of Children is run entirely by extremists. That is very unlikely. Nor are there many who leave their television sets permanently tuned to Channel I in order to avoid seeing Ulster Television on Channel 9. Nor is the Ulster Teachers Union boycotted by anyone.
Nor, as far as I know, is the Ulster Farmers Union. I should be interested to hear from the hon. Lady whether she suggests that it has Protestant overtones. The Ulster Farmers Union works happily for the good of the Ulster farmers, and is recognised and negotiated with by the British Government. The Royal Ulster Agricultural Society shows are patronised by men and women of all creeds. I have heard no objection to the word "Royal" or "Ulster".
A short time ago, in Committee, WJ discussed the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Only the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)

though it worth while to make a point about the territory denoted by the word "Ulster". As far as I know, Ulster Savings Certificates are not boycotted or banned by anybody. They are bought indiscriminately.
In defence terms the word "Ulster" has honourable connotations, of which most inhabitants of the territory of Northern Ireland or Ulster are justly proud. Almost every Northern Irish Territorial Army unit has the word "Ulster" in its title. Before the war there was the 3rd Ulster Searchlight Regiment, and every unit in it had a title containing the word "Ulster". As far as I know that did not prevent anybody, of any denomination, from joining it. In 1955,1 believe, it was amalgamated into the 245th Ulster L.A.A. Regiment. Furthermore, there was always an Ulster Division of the Royal Naval Reserve. It may have been the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve at one time, but it is now the Royal Naval Reserve. The Protestants of Ulster have always joined these units, and, as far as I remember, I have never heard any objection raised to the name "Ulster". It is a good name and ought to be retained.
The Amendment was moved by an hon. Lady from Northern Ireland whose charity one might expect, would begin at home, or at any rate in her constituency, but I must say that not for many years have I heard anybody in the constituency of Mid-Ulster seek to change its name. As far as I know it is only the Member they want to change.
I believe that this force is very well named, that it will engender pride and that people from all sides will join it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: May I make it clear from the start that I am not one of those who support the Amendment because I am opposed to the entire Bill. I recognise that a case has been made out for a force of this kind to be established, but I am very much opposed to the name which has been chosen for it.
Perhaps I should make clear my personal position. As most hon. Members are aware, I am an Irishman, born in Dublin and brought up in what is now the Republic of Ireland. I have been educated, and have spent all my life since I left school, in this country. I served in the British Army, am a member of the


Bar in this country and I have been a Member of Parliament here for 10 years for English constituencies. I come from a Catholic family but I am not myself a Catholic. I received a Protestant and not a Catholic education. I hope that that background helps me to see both sides of the situation.
When she moved the Amendment, the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) put her finger on the point when she said that if this title is given to this force, the number of Catholics who will join it is liable to be negligible. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in a charming but, I hope he will not mind my saying, woolly and singularly English speech, suggested that we should stop looking back to the past and look forward to the future. I entirely support that sentiment, but if he wants people to do that, it is better to support a title which does not have associations with the past and will not make the people he wants to look to the future look back to the past.
It is not the word "Ulster" by itself, it is not the word "Defence" by itself, which is offensive. It is the combination of these two words, "Ulster Defence", which has certain associations which are highly charged politically in Northern Ireland, and that is why it is important to change the name. It is a reason which it is extremely difficult for Englishmen with no knowledge of Irish affairs to grasp and understand. It is a reason which hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be unwilling to recognise. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a real reason and a real objection, and it will be a serious prejudice to the future of this Force and its composition and to the people willing to join it if it starts life with a name such as this.
It has been suggested that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I have always thought that a singularly foolish statement, for I can think of many a name which could be given to a rose which would make it smell far less sweet. The title which is given to this force does not smell sweet in the nostrils of many people to whom, I genuinely believe, it is the Government's intention that it should smell sweet.
That is the reason why it should be changed. I was delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs on the Front Bench a few moments ago, and I am sorry that he has left, no doubt for some necessary refreshment. I hope that as soon as he has had that refreshment he will return and will remain until at least this debate is complete because, with all respects to my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence, I do not believe that this is a matter which can be fairly and properly judged when seen only, as it were, from under a military cap.
It is true that the word "Ulster" has some romantic and honourable associations for military people. They are indeed associations which go back long before the establishment of the Northern Ireland Government, long before the partition of Ireland. I recall serving in the last war in 3rd Division, in which we had a number of Irish regiments. Among other things I had to go to talk to them. Most of the men, like myself, came from Southern Ireland. The Irish regiments have great associations for Irishmen from all parts of Ireland. But that has nothing to do with the nature of this force, which is not an ordinary military force but a para-military force occupying a half-way rôle between a military force and a police force.
It is very important that people in Northern Ireland are persuaded and convinced that it is not, as has been suggested, merely a means of perpetuating the Ulster B Specials under a different name but a genuinely fresh, newly-recruited force, recruited on a genuinely impartial basis. To give it a title which contains the phrase "Ulster Defence" means that it will have aseociations on which the hon. Lady instructed the House. I am sure that most hon. Members present knew little or nothing about those associations. It is because of those associations that I urge the Government to say that they will look at the matter again. The term "Ulster" in itself would be a complete inaccuracy if it were to be applied to what is a Northern Ireland body. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clarke) gave examples of a number of no doubt wholly admirable bodies which style themselves with the word "Ulster" in their title, and I have no doubt that he is right in saying


that no one has objected to them. But they are not constitutional bodies. For the Government to set up a new constitutional body, which is to operate under the British Army in Northern Ireland, and to call it the Ulster Defence Regiment, is taking an important constitutional step and, I would say, an important constitutional step backwards. They ought not to do it. It does not improve a difficult situation which I know the Government are anxious in every way to try to ease. Indeed, they have been easing it with consummate skill ever since the recent struggles arose.
I do not believe that the Government are so ignorant as not to have realised at least some of the implications of what they were doing. That leads me to believe that this is a negotiated title. It is clear that in the negotiations which have taken place between the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Government there must have been a certain amount of give and take in the proposals contained in the Bill. I suspect that the Government of Northern Ireland were insistent upon this title and that the Government here perhaps did not realise the full implications of acceding to that request. If I am wrong, I am delighted, and in that case it will be much easier for the Government to change the title. If I am right, I urge the Government to have second thoughts and to realise that there are more serious implications in this matter than perhaps they recognised at the time they made the agreement.
I do not forget that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in welcoming the Bill on Second Reading and, no doubt, speaking the minds of hon. Members opposite representing Northern Ireland constituencies, particularly laid stress on his welcome for the title of the new force. That has made me have further doubts.
I hope that what I have said and what other hon. Members will say will be sufficient to make the Government agree to look at this matter again. I have now completed more than ten years' service as a Member of this House and in that time I have not refrained from supporting my party in the way the Whips would like. But I must give this warning: unless the Government are able to say that they will look further into this matter,

that record will not remain unblemished.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) has missed the main point. He has said that the title "Ulster Defence Regiment" may in itself be sufficient to deter a certain number of the minority from joining the force. I ask him to consider the alternative.
Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) will realise that a minority there feel strongly about the constitutional position and make no bones of the fact that they want to see a unified republic. They are not likely to support any defence force, whether it be called the "Northern Ireland Defence Force" or the "Ulster Defence Force". The name is irrelevant. What matters is the purpose for which the force has been brought into being.
The hon. and learned Member is wrong in calling it a para-military force. The Minister has made it clear that it is a military force. It is not to be used for a civil rôle, but purely as a reserve force to protect Northern Ireland's borders.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman was talking about constitutional means. As an Englishman, when I hear the name "Ulster" together with defence I think of the unconstitutional activities of Carson and "Gallaper" Smith. Does the hon. Gentleman really maintain that Ulster is the constitutional name for Northern Ireland?

Mr. McMaster: That contribution does not affect my argument. There is a minority in Northern Ireland who support nationalist and republican candidates. They number perhaps 100,000 out of a Roman Catholic population of between 500,000 and 600,000. This small, militant, republican minority will not support any force, no matter what name it has.
I want to refer to some of the things the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said. I am sorry to see that she is leaving the Chamber. She has now sat down again, I am glad to see. I should like to put on record that I and my colleagues do not accept anything that she has said in her wilder allegations about the Ulster Special Constabulary. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton


(Mr. Heffer) wants to interrupt, perhaps he would do it standing and not from a sedentary position.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends from Northern Ireland all make reference to the fact that they are not interested in what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) says, claiming that she is irresponsible, and so forth. Yet they make whole speeches attacking her. If they are not bothered by her, why do they keep attacking her?

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman will reserve his remarks to the end rather than the beginning of my speech, he will see how irrelevant they are.
I repeat what I said in an intervention in the hon. Lady's speech. I hope that all reasonable and sensible Roman Catholics will come forward and make this force work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, we must look to the future in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, this debate about a name is nothing more than a quibble.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot stay with us. We have seen in her speech and in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not spoken yet."]—that there is in Northern Ireland a minority not prepared to accept the Constitution. These republicans are outlawed both in the North and the South, and they have created untold misery for thousands of their fellow citizens, both Protestant and Catholic, in Northern Ireland. I have seen this in my constituency during the past six months.

8.15 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not at this juncture refighting the battles of Belfast, but are dealing with the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: I shall leave that point. I was merely answering something which had been raised by the hon. Lady.
The situation has left in Northern Ireland a legacy of bitterness which we have to live down there. We in Northern Ireland accept this new body under its

new name and want to make a success of it so that we can look forward to a more settled and peaceful future. I hope that the regiment will never be called upon to defend Ulster's borders against an armed attack across those borders, either by the I.R.A. or any other force.

Mr. Michael Foot: It has been argued by some hon. Members that this Amendment is subsidiary and one on which we should spend little time because we have more important arguments to come to later. I am not denying that there are important arguments that we shall come to later in the evening, but I believe that they could be affected by the Government's attitude to this Amendment. Indeed, we have our procedures and order matters in this style so that we have an opportunity in our debates for the Government to make a response to appeals made from this side of the House, or from opposite, and, if the Government wish, at all times it is within their power to expedite the business of the Committee by accepting or showing good will towards particular Amendments.
We have had three or four powerful speeches on the Amendment. Anyone who heard the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) would agree that hers was a formidable speech with a considerable amount of evidence in it. The only mistake she made was in her misapprehension about the way we conduct our affairs inside the Labour Party, but we shall be able to enlighten her on that when we come to the conclusion of the debate. But that is my only quarrel with her; she made a most powerful speech.
Also, no one on this side will deny that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) made another. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) also spoke with special knowledge. For the moment, for reasons of delicacy, I will not refer to what has been said by hon. Members opposite, but I repeat that no one can deny that, on this side, there have been powerful arguments for the Amendment.
If the Government wish to speed up the debate and to get to what they may consider to be more substantial matters, they should come forward and show some


good will towards the Amendment. I cannot see any reason, except for those which we may discuss later, why they should not. This is not very auspicious for our later discussions, for the Government so far have not made any move to accept or to acknowledge the importance of the Amendment.
I know that there are some hon. Members opposite, most of whom have now departed, who say that this is a trivial question and is not a matter of any importance. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that he proposed to treat the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster with disgust. That is not the kind of language I like to hear, although I suppose that it is parliamentary. We will have to spend some part of our debates teaching the Tory Members from Northern Ireland some elementary good manners. I know that they have not had to exercise them in the past, because we have not had many debates on this subject, but we shall have many debates on Irish questions in the days and nights and years to come.
Hon. Members opposite, the "Parliamentary B Specials", must show some good manners. This is particularly true when, after the hon. Member had said that he would treat my hon. Friend's speeches with disgust, Tory Members proceeded to writhe under the lash. That is what happens to Tory Members from Northern Ireland when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster speaks, and some of us find that process extremely gratifying; we can bear it and will continue to do so.
The Government would be most unwise to argue that the question of the name is a triviality. That was the principal argument of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). All the examples recited of the Ulster dairy and the Ulster bus service had nothing to do with defence or these explosive questions which are so deep in Irish history. But for hon. Members to try to treat this matter as a triviality is highly dangerous, because every time they say that the name does not matter the force of the interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster becomes the greater: if it does not matter, why not make the change?
Let us consider why they do not want to make the change. I would have

thought that all hon. Members would agree that if this newly-named defence force is to succeed, it will have to be distinguished from the old B Specials at least in this fact—that it will be a balanced force and that it will have members of the Catholic as well as of the Protestant population. We are all agreed about that, even hon. Members opposite. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) has not turned up. He does not agree with that proposition, but the others pretend that they do. We will give them the credit for saying that they agree with the proposition, and I see that they nod. They say that they want plenty of Catholics to join this force, and again I see them nod.
Do they think that more Catholics will join if the name is changed, or fewer? Do they think that if they keep the Ulster name it will make any difference? Why not change it? On the subject of what will be the response of members of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West speak with considerably more authority than do Unionist Members opposite. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who would honestly say that as many Catholics are likely to join a force called the Ulster Defence Regiment as are likely to join a force which has a neutral name, even if it is not precisely the name suggested by my hon. Friends.
If hon. Members opposite are sincere in their desire that as many Catholics as possible should join the force, or at any rate a sufficient number to hold the balance and to make it fundamentally different from the old B Specials, they can prove their good will at the beginning of the debate by agreeing to the proposition to change it. If they refuse, if they say that they will not change the name and are adamant about keeping it, that will sow suspicion not only in the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, but even in the minds of unsuspicious people like myself. We will begin to ask why it is that the Northern Ireland Members are determined to keep the name.
I believe that they want to keep the name precisely because to do so would


keep the Catholics out, precisely because it would identify the new force under the old cloak. That is why they want to keep the name and that is why we want it changed. This is where the Government come into the matter.
The Government have to choose between the demands which have been so insistently made by Unionist Members and the vast majority of Labour Members. I have not the slightest doubt that if the majority of my hon. Friends were asked whether the name should be the Ulster Regiment, they would agree to change the name. Certainly, they would do so after having listened to the remarkable speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot).
What I want to know from the Government, and I should like a straight answer, for it will make a great deal of difference to my attitude to the whole of the debate, is whether they are in a position to accept the Amendment, whether they are in a position to accept the persuasive arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, let alone those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. We have deep suspicions about this. We suspect, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested in language much more reticent than that which I normally employ, that the reason why the Government could not agree to the Amendment is that there is some understanding between this Government and the Stormont Government. I am not prepared to tolerate it in matters such as this.
We all know that Governments are bound to engage in negotiations with outside bodies of different kinds and that they present the understandings they have made to the House of Commons. That is a normal process of government and Governments could not be carried on without it. But the whole of this situation in Northern Ireland arises because of the collapse of the faith of large numbers of people in the Stormont Government. That is why we are debating the matter at all. That is why British troops are in Northern Ireland—because the great mass of the people, at least the minority, have lost faith in the Stormont Government. The majority may still have faith in it, but the faith of the minority has collapsed, collapsed to such

a degree that we have to take steps in Northern Ireland which are quite exceptional to those taken in any other part of the United Kingdom—we have had to send troops there to preserve law and order and the common decencies for the people who live there. In that situation extreme measures have had to be taken by a Labour Government, and they do not like sending troops to some of these places. [HON. MEMBERS: "Anguilla."] They were probably unwise there, and they did not send them to Southern Rhodesia, where they might have had a better excuse.
They sent them, quite rightly, to Northern Ireland, but it was an extreme measure caused by the collapse of the confidence of a large number of people in the Government of Stormont. In that situation it is intolerable that a Bill should be introduced in this House under which, in effect we are required to reject every Amendment proposed on behalf of the powerful minority in Northern Ireland because of an agreement—if this is so—made with the Stormont Government, the very Government the collapse of whose authority has led to this situation.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Some of us for many days past, ever since the Bill was proposed, have been urging the Government by every means available to us, through normal party machinery and other methods, to be prepared to accept Amendments. In that sense, the Amendment is a test of their good faith. It does not involve a major change in the structure of the force. We shall debate that later. It does not even involve the question of whether they will carry out the Hunt recommendations, another matter that we shall come to later. Those are important questions.

The Amendment involves the simple question of the explosive matter of the name, which everybody who knows anything about it on either side of the Committee knows goes deep back into Irish history. On that subject, it is a question not whether the Government are prepared to make Amendments but whether they are in a position to make them.

On a matter of this nature, on which overwhelmingly on this side we have


been critical of the Stormont apparatus for generations, and for generations have been seeking to remedy it, we are not prepared to be told that we cannot amend even the name of the new force. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for the Committee not to vote on the matter. But if the Government are not prepared to make a concession—and they could have made it earlier—let us consider what they would have to face if they made one. They would have to go to Stormont and say that the name had to be changed, and they could say, "The name will be changed because the British House of Commons, after considering the matter, thinks that it would be better to change it so as to encourage more Catholics to join the force."

We argue that because we know— and there is not a single Member in the House who does not know it in his heart, whatever he may say with his vote and voice—that what I am saying is true. If the name is changed there is a better chance of having the force on the basis that Northern Ireland hon. Members opposite claim they want. Everybody knows it. The Government know it, and the only argument against the Amendment is that they are shackled to the agreement they made with Stormont.

If that is so—and I believe it to be the case, unless they can give me sound evidence to the contrary—the business of the House of Commons is to break the shackles, to set the Government free from their Stormont undertaking, if that is what they have made.

Mr. Henry Clark: Civil rights.

Mr. Foot: Even Ministers should have rights, even Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State. Macaulay once said that an Under-Secretary or a Minister in a Government outside the Cabinet was a slave. I would not use such severe terms.
I am not talking about the normal situation. This is an extremely serious matter. I am not joking about it. Are we to be told throughout our debates that we cannot have any substantial Amendments because there has been some kind of agreement with Stormont? I do not expect to be told it in those explicit terms. If there has been an

agreement I expect it all the more to be concealed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): We are on a hiding to nothing.

Mr. Foot: It is not a hiding to nothing. My hon. Friend's best course is to show his independence.
The argument of hon. Members opposite who have said that the matter is trivial reinforces the case of my hon. Friends who say that it is important. However one cares to regard it, it is a powerful argument for changing the name. If, on this minor Amendment, we are not prepared to start getting the Government to accommodate themselves with the opinion of the House of Commons, we shall be in difficulties.
I want to see, as, I believe, do many hon. Members, the whole situation in Ireland starting off on a new basis. The charge that has been made is that the Ulster Defence Regiment will be the B Specials over again. If we want to alter that, we should start by altering the name. Then let us proceed to examine the structure. But let the Government not tell us at the beginning of this debate that we must accept what was originally put in the Bill and that we are not entitled, as we are on every other Bill, to amend it.
Let us discuss, constructively and with force, the structure of the Bill, but let the Government show some good will to those who, for many years, have been saying that this Irish question should be debated in this House. We are not prepared to tolerate a situation in which a minority in Northern Ireland, for whom we are responsible, are abused, discriminated against and treated in the fashion that they have been treated over 50 years. We want the new start in Ireland and the way is to change the Bill—perhaps considerably—but we should start first by changing the name.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has made a powerful speech for the Amendment, to which I am sure the whole Committee will have paid great attention. There is only one point on which I disagree with him. That is that if the Minister gives the House an assurance that there has been no secret compact with Stormont, I for one will be prepared to accept his


assurance: I hope that he will be able to give it.
This is a very important matter, on which clarification is needed, especially after the series of speeches on Second Reading in favour of some change in the name and the further series of speeches to which Ministers have listened in this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that this does not involve any matter of principle for the Unionists or any concession as to the composition or powers of the force, and that it should have been a trivial matter which we could have got out of the way in the first few minutes if the Minister had said that he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) or some other change in the title to eliminate the obnoxious word.
I must say that I am not wedded to the hon. Lady's Amendment, because her title is far too cumbersome, but if the Minister would say that he would eliminate the word "Ulster" and bring forward an alternative title incorporating the words "Northern Ireland", which I understand are acceptable to all sections in the province, this would satisfy me. None of the Unionist Members has objected to this. They have produced arguments in favour of the retention of the word "Ulster" which sound pretty half-hearted to me. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman said that he would make the proposed change he would upset no one on this side.
The hon. Gentleman would then be able to go to Stormont, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, and say that, in response to the overwhelming opinion of the House of Commons both on Second Reading and in Committee, he felt that something of this kind should be done. I have put this to him, because, like the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), I am wholly in favour of the principles behind the Bill and I want to see it go through and be made to work as soon as it is on the Statute Book. The Minister should consider carefully whether it is more likely to work with a change in the name than if he insists on keeping the word "Ulster".
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that he despaired, as he

listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, of there ever being any harmony in the province. Had he still been here, I should have liked to quote to him one sentence from a very distinguished person:
Ireland cannot change for the worse, but unless religious animosities or violence of parties can be in some measure allayed, I do not think she can receive much benefit from any plan of Government.
This was from a letter sent by Lord Cornwall to his brother James on 17th November, 1788.
Things do not seem to change very rapidly in Northern Ireland, but this quotation shows, if the hon. Gentleman needs any further persuasion, that, unless we get rid of this sectarian bitterness, no scheme like this regiment or any of the other Measures to be taken to implement civil rights in the province will operate properly——

Mr, Henry Clark: I have listened to the whole debate, including the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It has been of a very high temperature. I think that I know Ireland at least as well as hon. Members who have spoken on this side, but I do not see the connection between Ulster and sectarian differences and why the words "Ulster Defence Force" are so highly charged. We have had evidence from only one hon. Member with Irish experience—the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—who, frankly, is not the most unbiased witness the House has ever heard.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady has given exhaustive illustrations of what "Ulster" means.

Mr. Clark: Nobody else has.

Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps I will add only one further example. To come on from 1788 to 1912, I remind the House of the sectarian bitterness occasioned by the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force, supported by the traitors, Sir Edward Carson, Bonar Law and Sir Henry Wilson. I remind the House also of what——

Mr. Clark: With due respect to the hon. Member——

Mr. Lubbock: I will give way presently—Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, said about the character of that force


in a speech which he made shortly afterwards. He said:
As long as it affects working men in England or Nationalist peasants in Ireland, there is no measure of military force which the Tory Party will not readily employ. They denounce all violence except their own. They uphold all law except the law they choose to break. They always welcome the application of force to others. But they themselves are to remain immune. They are to select from the Statute Book the laws they will obey and the laws they will resist.
That was what the then Mr. Winston Churchill said about the Ulster Volunteer Force and its supporters whom I have mentioned. This illustrates, to answer the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), why the word "Ulster" is a very dangerous one to use.

Mr. Clark: Can the hon. Member suggest any other proper name which would be roughly applicable which does not equally raise passions of one sort and another? [HON. MEMBERS: "Northern Ireland."]

Mr. Lubbock: Since the official title of the province is Northern Ireland, I cannot see any objection to the use of those words. I do not see why that title should be unacceptable to the Unionists, either here or at Stormont. As far as I am aware, it would be quite acceptable to them, with the possible exception of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham), who is not here. If there is any difficulty about this, let us discuss it and have hon. Members' alternative proposals. Let them suggest a new title, which they have not done. They have not put down an Amendment although they realise the controversial nature of this proposal. If they want the force to work and they disagree with the suggested alternative of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster, why did they not try to suggest a title of their own which they thought would be acceptable? All I am trying to do is to get as wide as possible a measure of agreement so that the proposal can work.

Mr. McMaster: Does not the hon. Member understand that the trouble is not whether the title is "Ulster" or "Northern Ireland" but arises from the title "Northern Ireland Defence Force"? It carries the idea of defending Northern Ireland, and hon. Members opposite would be as likely to object to "Northern

Ireland Defence Regiment" as to "Ulster Defence Regiment".

Mr. Lubbock: That also would be rather too long. That is my criticism of the hon. Lady's Amendment. I would simply use the title Northern Ireland Regiment. That would be a proud and honourable title that would be acceptable to all sections of opinion.
Perhaps this is a matter which hon. Members on this side could deal with, if any more of them speak in the debate, and say whether they would come to a compromise on it, if they do not like the hon. Lady's suggestion, and produce some form of title that would be mutually acceptable to all sides of this House and with which we could then go to Stormont and say that it would do the utmost to ensure that the objects which we both seek are fully accomplished.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who mentioned the Ulster Dairy, Ulster buses, Ulster television, and so on, was off the mark. None of those is a military force. I do not think that the point was, as the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) put it, that there was a constitutional difference between those commercial organisations and the Ulster Defence Regiment. They are purely peaceful in their activities. There is no threat to the minority as far as I am aware in the activities of the Ulster Dairy. It sells milk to whoever wants to buy it; there is no risk of its discriminating in favour of Protestants in Northern Ireland. That is why it does not matter very much what the title of a dairy or a bus company may be.
In the case of a military force, the title assumes a quite different complexion. I agree with the sense of what the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said, although I think that it is the military rather than the constitutional significance of the difference which really matters.

8.45 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that a force set up under the authority of this House, under the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and subject to the Minister of Defence is likely to discriminate against anybody?

Mr. Lubbock: If I were to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman I would have to refer to the vetting procedure, and that arises on a later Amendment.
We are discussing the number of likely applicants from the Catholic and Protestant sections of the community who will wish to give their services in the first instance. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is implying may be correct; that, by virtue of the procedures that will be adopted, and which I hope will be thoroughly explained to the House, the G.O.C. will be able to weight the applications heavily in favour of the Catholics rather than the Protestants to take into account the different numbers that will come forward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know what I have in mind.
I am not sure that it is correct to say that no Catholics will apply. Rather, I agree with those who say that even if a minority of potential recruits are deterred from applying, that would be a serious matter. I vastly prefer to accept the opinions of people like the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who have knowledge of the views of the minority in the Province, than those who speak for the Protestants in Northern Ireland and who, therefore, are less likely to know what emotions are aroused by the use of these words in the title.
I suggest that this discussion should be ended quickly so that we may hear the Minister's reply and, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, judge what attitude the Government and the House are likely to take to later Amendments. I therefore view this as a critical test of the Government's good faith and of their intention to make this regiment work.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), I do not oppose the establishment of this regiment. Indeed, it could be an extremely useful balm on the Irish situation. However, that it quite different from saying that I approve of its name. Because I want this regiment to serve a useful purpose in bringing peace to Ireland, I am keen to see the Government change their mind about its name.
We are discussing a situation in which one section in Northern Ireland passionately wanted to get rid of the Specials while another section as it happened, a larger one—equally passionately wanted to keep them. The Home Secretary—he is probably at the back of this, although we have representatives of other Departments on the Government Front Bench—coming to this problem with the utmost good will, has hit on what I hesitate to call, but must call, this gimmick; the establishment of a regiment to bring peace to Ireland, and this is one of his contributions.
If this regiment is established, each side in Northern Ireland will be able to say that it has scored strong points towards its own point of view, and that is extremely valuable in this situation. I would have liked to see my hon. Friends—who obviously want peace in Ireland at least as much as I do; this particularly goes for the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—bring a lightness of touch into the situation which is more associated with their island than with ours. Instead, they have come down somewhat heavy-footed and Anglo-Saxon-like in favour of——

Miss Devlin: With due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, and since he and not I called it a gimmick, may I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I represent the people of Northern Ireland, and are much more interested in their welfare than good gimmicks on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend is entitled to make that remark, but I did not use the word "gimmick" in any derogatory sense. A gimmick can be very useful, and I am all for finding the right gimmick for the right situation. It is perfectly true that I do not represent the people of Northern Ireland but I would remind my hon. Friend that, even though it may not be for very long, I have lived in Northern Ireland for longer than she has; so she must have some respect not only for the knowledge of certain hon. Members but for their real intention of doing the right thing to bring back peace to that unfortunate country.
I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to think again about the name. We have in this House become accustomed to the downright arrogance or impertinence of hon. Members opposite representing Northern Ireland constituencies—for many of whom I have a great personal regard—in assuming that Ulster would be an ordinary word to use when they really mean Northern Ireland. It is to make themselves look bigger than they are because they know that so many counties are outside Northern Ireland, and that is a great pity; but is there any reason why the Government should perpetuate that situation, and in a Statute? I beg them to think again.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: May I follow directly on the observations made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and take up two points, beginning with the one with which he concluded when he implied that those of us on this side of the Committee who have a genuine affection for the use of the word "Ulster" are being arrogant? This is extremely unfair. I happen to like the word on the ground of euphony. I have always liked the name, and I strongly resent any accusation that I am being sectarian. I think that his remark was a little harsh.
I know the hon. and learned Member meant his remarks about seeking a gimmick in the best possible sense, but he would be the first to realise that, in the tension in Northern Ireland, to refer to the proposed regiment by means of a word which suggests a gimmick can create an unfortunate climate. Whether or not the fears are realistic is irrelevant.
Many people in Northern Ireland genuinely believe that there is a need and an urgency for a regiment such as is envisaged. There has been a lot of talk about semantics, but let us be quite accurate. It may be true that this is the first time that there has been in the title of a Bill a breach of convention in the description of Northern Ireland, but one may cast one's mind back to the Ireland Act—not the Republic of Ireland Act. So there is a precedent for using customary names rather than names which may be expected to be found exclusively in treaties.

Miss Devlin: As I understand, the Government of Ireland enactment to

which the hon. Gentleman refers is based on legislation which dealt with the question of treaties in Ireland. Originally, it referred to Ireland as a whole. This set the precedent for the existence of the title in the subsequent Act. Therefore, on that simple basis his argument must fall.

Mr. Pounder: With respect to the hon. Lady, we are at cross purposes. I was referring to the Ireland Act.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the term in this case was particularly appropriate because the Ireland Act of 1949 dealt with the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, so that it was appropriate to call it the Ireland Act?

Mr. Pounder: I recall that the purpose of the Act was to codify the situation in the Republic of Ireland rather than in Ireland as a whole. Do not let the Committee get tied down on that small point. Let us move on.
The argument so often advanced by hon. Members opposite that recruitment will be affected because of the name, cannot be relevant. It is conjecture at this stage. Nobody can say whether recruitment will or will not be affected. It is a matter of opinion or a matter of judgment.
I cannot believe that it will have the undesirable effect of minimising the number of those who will come forward to assist in the proposed regiment. It is quite wrong to imply, as has been implied by more than one hon. Member opposite, that the name of Ulster is synonymous with Protestantism, or that its very overtones are sinister. To me, that is an irrational argument, it is emotional, and it is without foundation.
A number of people in Northern Ireland who are opposing the name are also opposing the requirement for the regiment, the cost of the regiment, and so on. This surely is nit-picking. If it is not one thing it is something else on which they fasten, simply because they dislike the concept of the regiment.
Then there is the invalidity of the argument put by those who are so keen on trying to change the name because, they say, it is the only barrier between acceptance or otherwise.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee


that there is no significant body of opinion among the Catholic minority which takes objection to this name?

Mr. Pounder: Time alone will tell whether it is a significant body of opinion. There have been vociferous objections, but vociferous objections do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority. It tends to be the minority that is most vociferous. It is easy to conjecture one way or the other. I am not prepared to make an assessment on the effects. I am simply expressing my own personal view. I do not think that it will have an effect——

Mr. John Ryan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what objections he has received from his own constituents to the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Pounder: I have received no letters for or against the name. It can, therefore, be assumed that the majority of my constituents are happy with the name. If they were not, they would have let their views be known.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) tended to make the point that Ulster was a negotiated title. I would be the last to dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who laid stress on the paramountcy of Parliament, but surely it is better if it is a negotiated title. Anything in the present situation in Northern Ireland which appears to the people of Northern Ireland to be imposed from outside will only further put off the day when both communities can live together in peace and harmony. Expressed another way, the Englishman has not yet been born who understands Ireland and its problems, whether in the North or in the South. Therefore, I hope that this is a title which has not been forced on the regiment by anybody.
Whatever one may think, and however one may argue about the title of the regiment, what is relevant is that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to see the regiment get off the ground. I hope that as many people as possible from both communities in Northern Ireland will make themselves available for membership of that regiment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Roebuck: I begin by expressing my disappointment at the absence from the Treasury Bench of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Home Secretary. This Bill is regarded as being of such importance that it is being considered by a Committee of the Whole House. Many hon. Members on this side, including myself, believe that substantial alterations should be made, and I am not convinced that my two hon. Friends on the Front Bench have authority to listen to our arguments and be swayed by them. If that is not the case, no doubt they will intervene and put me right, but I suspect that they have been briefed by my right hon. Friends and told to resist the many Amendments which have been tabled, notwithstanding our arguments.
I intend no disrespect to my hon. Friends when I say that it is usually the organ-grinder who dictates a change of tune. Certainly, their demeanour when listening to the arguments of my hon. Friends has not been that of people willing to consider carefully the substantial and compelling points made with a view to making changes.
I am not an Irishman, nor am I a Roman Catholic. I am a Lancashire Methodist. I object to the proposed name for the force because, for a long time, I have regarded it as an impertinence for the Irish Republic to refer to its territory as "Eire", which I understand is the Erse word for the whole of Ireland. By the same token, it is wrong for those in the Province of Northern Ireland to refer to that area as "Ulster". Quite demonstrably, Ulster extends beyond the Province of Northern Ireland. When we are trying to spread peace and good will and to sow harmony, it is nonsense to pick on a title which will be offensive to large numbers of the very people whom we are anxious to induce to support the Constitution.
As I said by the way of intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), when I hear the name "Ulster" my mind goes back to Carson, "Galloper" Smith and others who picked the laws which they intended to uphold. I ask those hon. Gentlemen opposite who are members of the Ulster Unionist Party to realise that the term "Ulster" is offensive and


repugnant not only to those of my hon. Friends who come from Ireland or have Irish connections but also to those of us on this side of the Irish Sea who seek to uphold our constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has put forward very many compelling reasons why the proposed title is likely to lead to great difficulties. She has pointed to the tragedy of the man who was shot by someone who belonged to an organisation which had the name "Ulster" in its title. In the face of those arguments, I cannot understand the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they say that they believe in the Union Jack and uphold the constitution, what is wrong with the proper name for the Province, which is Northern Ireland?
The most interesting contribution came from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). The hon. Gentleman, quoting from Shakespeare, said that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. But the hon. Gentleman had forgotten a piece of Scottish military history about an English general who went to Scotland. The sweet william was named after him, but it was known to the Scots as stinking Billy. He was so known, and so were the British troops. Therefore, it has some significance, particularly when we are dealing with lesser breeds like the Scots and the Irish, and is a matter to be taken into consideration.
Does the alternative, Northern Ireland, offend anybody? Does it offend any hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in the Ulster Unionist Party? If so, can we be told why, because it has not yet emerged.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk was on a better point and so was the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) who spoke of euphony. He seemed to think that "Ulster Defence Regiment" was a more poetic sort of title than the one proposed by my hon. Friends. To some extent I agree.
But what is wrong with L.D.V.? I am not as old as the hon. Member for Ormskirk—as I hope is clearly apparent—but I remember that in the early days of the war we had the L.D.V.—the Local Defence Volunteer. That was a very honourable title. Is not that precisely the same kind of organisation which is proposed for Northern Ireland—an organisation to defend the State against incursions

from across the border? I see no objection to that.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the L.D.V. retained its name for approximately six months. It was then thought fit to change it in Northern Ireland to the Ulster Home Guard. If the hon. Gentleman objects so much to the Ulster Defence Regiment—I am sure I can speak for most of my colleagues—we are prepared to accept Ulster Home Guard.

Mr. Roebuck: The L.D.V. was changed to Home Guard here. I have no objection to it being called the Home Guard. But that is not the point. The offensive portion is the word "Ulster".
There have been accusations floating across the Committee that those who object do not want the Bill. That is not so in my case. I want the Bill to succeed, but this title will tend to make the proposed regiment not succeed. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is with me in wanting this regiment to succeed, I hope that he will concede this point and state later, if he catches you eye, Sir Robert, precisely his objection to the "Northern Ireland Defence Regiment". I understand there is no objection from some of my hon. Friends. Therefore, can there not be a bit of concord between the two factions in Northern Ireland to try to make it succeed?
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Ulster (Miss Devlin) put a very pertinent point: who thought of this idea; where did the title "Ulster" come from? It has been suggested that it was the idea of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in some negotiations in cigar-laden Guinness-topped back rooms. I do not know whether that is so, but I ask the direct question of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as the Home Secretary is not to reward us with his presence: where did the title "Ulster" come from? Is it the result of some deal with Stormont? If so, what authority had my right hon. Friend to pledge the House of Commons to agree to it? Let us know a great deal more about it.
After all, to a large extent it is the money of taxpayers on this side of the Irish Sea which will be spent on the operation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Exclusively."] My constituents have already spent far too much in trying to put


right the errors which have been perpetrated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In that I include the Conservative Front Bench. I am never sure what the difference is between Ulster Unionists and the Conservative Party. I suspect that they are the same—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are the same."] Therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite can bear some of the blame for inflicting an even greater load on the British taxpayers. If my constituents are to pay this money, I want the force to be efficient.
It is clear from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, and from the noises which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that this title is bound to be an obstacle to the efficient recruitment and running of this regiment. I therefore ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, if they have the authority to do it, to accept the Amendment.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot) I have a fairly reasonable record in the Division Lobby, but I shall not vote for this proposal, so the Government had better change their mind.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Having intervened briefly in the debate on the Police Bill, I feel I should intervene with equal brevity on this matter. I have listened to every speech, and it seems to me that one which most requires an answer from this side of the House is that of the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. Mac-Dermot). I thought that he spoke with reason and with authority—I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not here—and I very much admired the tenor of his speech.
As I understood it, the gravamen of what he said was that some people in Northern Ireland feel very strongly that the word "Ulster" should not be used in the title of this regiment. I accept from him, and indeed from others, that that is so. Many people in Northern Ireland feel strongly on this subject. But it must be set against that that other people in Northern Ireland feel equally strongly that the word "Ulster" should be used in the title. [An HON. MEMBR: "For the wrong reasons."] The hon. Gentleman

says that. I wish that he would listen. Let us accept that some people in Northern Ireland feel strongly that the word "Ulster" should not be used, and we have been given reasons for that. I hope the Committee will accept that others in Northern Ireland feel equally strongly that it should be used.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Mr. Russell Kerr rose——

Mr. Griffiths: Later. As I see it, it seems that it is a matter of weighing the opinions. I think it has to be accepted that there is a minority which wishes the word not to be used. The Government are right to give this minority opinion the most careful consideration, but, at the same time, while the Government must weigh the opinion of the minority, they are not entitled to trample on the sentiments of the majority, and there cannot be any doubt that a majority——

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley) rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor is clearly not giving way, so the hon. Member who is trying to intervene must not persist.

Mr. Griffiths: There can be no doubt that, while the minority's feelings are entitled to be considered, the majority's view is plain, and it is that the word "Ulster" should be included in the title. That is my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Will he understand that the overriding consideration is the minority, that unless the minority is convinced of good will its members will not join the force? The only way in which this force can work is if the minority are prepared to join in large numbers. Therefore, in this case the priority is that the minority should accept this. This is one of those cases in which one has to yield to the minority in order to create a viable and effective force and get away from the shadow of the past.

Mr. Griffiths: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, and I recognise what he is saying. Nevertheless, if the force is to be a success, it is the more important that it should not begin by offending the


clear majority sentiment in Northern Ireland. We all wish this force to be a success and it falls to the Government to weigh all these difficult and imponderable questions. The Government will be right to come down on the side of the demonstrably majority opinion in Northern Ireland, and I hope that no hon. Member who wishes the force well will dispute that point.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I do not wish to be obstructive, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority which he, correctly, I imagine, describes as being in favour of Ulster being in the title would not be offended if the words "Northern Ireland" were substituted for it?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope to develop this point a little later. I content myself at the moment by saying again that the Government must weigh carefully the opinion of the minority, but they must come down in the end with the majority.
The name of the regiment is important, most of all to those who serve in it. If the name is to be successful as far as possible it should be short and clear and should evoke pride and loyalty. I believe that the title "Ulster Defence Regiment"qualifies under the first of these counts. It is short: it could hardly, in the circumstances, be shorter. "Ulster" is short, "Defence" is short, and "Regiment" is as short as it can reasonably be. Therefore, the title is inherently better than the one proposed in the hon. Lady's Amendment, because it is much easier for people to use.
Although this may not be regarded as important in this House—though I think it is outside—it happens to abbreviate very well. It comes out in the letters U.D.R.—not, perhaps, the most euphonious combination of letters for hon. Members opposite, but very much better than L.T.F. (N.I.), which sounds more like a new line on the underground than anything else. So, on the ground of brevity, "Ulster Defence Regiment" is a good title.
Second, it is important that it should be clear; and it is clear. Almost all of us would agree with this. To most people in this country, the word' "Ulster" means the Six Counties. It may be

argued that, historically, Ulster was wider. I accept that, of course—

Miss Devlin: Could the hon. Gentleman answer me a simple question which worries me——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Member gave way to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy).

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am following the hon. Member with great attention and sympathy. His argument, so far as I can see, is, first of all, that the title is brief; second, that the majority likes it and the majority's opinion must prevail over that of the minority. Would he address himself to something which he does not always consider—to the fact of Ulster? Six counties do not make up Ulster. There are nine counties in Ulster and, as he should know,
Contra factum non valet argumentum.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member may, if he wishes, be able to catch your eye and make his own speech, in one language or another, Sir Robert, after I have resumed my seat. I said simply that the word "Ulster" is clear to the great majority of the people of this country, and that is an advantage.
I suspect that the reason why hon. Gentlemen who have signed the Amendment object to this word is that they object to the existence of Ulster. That is what lies behind the Amendment, I think——

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin rose——

Mr. Griffiths: No, I will not give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will, of course, allow the hon. Lady to interrupt in a moment. I suspect that her difficulty over the Ulster Defence Regiment is that she does not want to defend Ulster. She wants to put an end to Ulster by achieving a union with Southern Ireland. This is a perfectly tenable point of view, which has been heard in the House before. But I must say that this is not a view which is shared by the overwhelming majority of the House, on both sides, as she will discover in the Lobby.
Nor is it the view of the majority of the people of this country. The great majority of our people are prepared to defend Ulster and to maintain Ulster under the


Crown. That is why I, for one, would wholly reject this Amendment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Member give way to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee)?

Mr. Griffiths: There are so many hon. Members asking me to give way, Sir Robert, that I am at a loss to choose one. I give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin).

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member is totally mistaken in thinking—albeit that his own opinion is important—that because he says that Ulster contains six counties it does any such thing. Ulster contains nine counties.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We simply cannot argue how many counties there are in Ulster. We are here to discuss whether this force should be called the Ulster Defence Regiment or something else. We must keep closely to that point.

Miss Devlin: If the hon. Member is still giving way—that is one objection. I pointed out that this was a minor objection to my agreeing to the Bill. I gave a number of other reasons. My opinions on the Bill are quite clear. I totally reject it. I also stated that, given the fact that it was going through the House, there were at least some Amendments which might help to make it more tolerable—and that one was not to call this force the Ulster Defence Regiment.
It is totally unfair for the hon. Member to say that I am against the existence of Ulster. I would point out to him that Ulster existed long before he or his party did—and it will do when he is rotting in his grave.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must remind hon. Members that in order to be effective and parliamentary, interventions must be short.

Mr. Griffiths: I see no reason why the hon. Lady should not have preferential treatment in the House. I do not think that it matters. I repeat my point, which I fear may have been lost in the length of the hon. Lady's intervention. I do want to defend Ulster. I do wish Ulster

to remain united with this country. I am in favour of the Bill, and opposed to the Amendment, precisely because I want to defend Ulster. That is why I am in favour of the "Ulster Defence Regiment".
The third criterion for the name of the regiment is that it should engender pride and loyalty among those who serve in it. In my part of England the Suffolk Regiment is a name that rings with pride. The Anglian Brigade also is a name that has real meaning to those who serve in it. That is why I suggest that the Ulster Defence Regiment will create pride in those who serve in it. All over the world there are men and women from Northern Ireland— Catholic and Protestant. They are in America, Australia and Canada, and they are proud to say, "I am an Ulsterman". I am glad that they are proud of it and I therefore find it surprising that anybody in this House, of all places, should object to that name being included in the title of a proud regiment.
The extraordinary statement has been made by the Liberal Party spokesman this evening that the word "Ulster" is obnoxious. That is most extraordinary, coming officially on behalf of the Liberal Party. Men and women who have gone out from this country have died for what they had considered to be their country—Ulster—when serving in the Royal Ulster Regiment. The British Army has been proud of them. I therefore resent the audacity of the Liberal Party Whip in describing the word "Ulster" as obnoxious. [Interruption.] I have quoted him precisely.

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Roebuck rose——

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not yield to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). The Liberal Chief Whip said that "Ulster" was an obnoxious word, and he should withdraw that.
Men from Ulster say, "I am an Ulster-man" for one reason—that they wish to distinguish themselves from Eire. Indeed, what they are guilty of, and what hon. Members opposite are accusing them of, is that they are proud to assert their Ulster nature, because it emphasises that they are British. That is the heart of the matter. They separate themselves from Southern Ireland, indicating that they are British, and they are entitled to use this title in order to make that assertion.
Why do the supporters of the Amendment object to the title? I believe that it is because they do not want this regiment at all, under any name. It is very much to be regretted that when we should be anxious to get the new regiment off the ground hon. Members are almost seeking to put Catholic citizens off from joining it, as if they were anxious to sabotage the regiment before it is established. Originally they were anxious to have the regiment because they thought that it would destroy the B Specials. Now they have suddenly cooled and they do not want to hear of the very regiment for which they were asking a month ago. But the majority in the House and in the country want it because they want the Union, and they want to see this regiment helping to maintain the Union.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said that the use of the word Ulster was "a gross trespass on the affairs of the Irish Republic". What an extraordinary statement to hear in this House. The Irish Republic would do well not to trespass, as it has done, on our affairs. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member should stand up here for a country which seeks to take away from the United Kingdom a part of our territory.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who speaks as if he were a one-man House of Commons, spoke of the parliamentary B Specials. In the Irish question he has made himself the leader of a parliamentary Mafia, which is the best description I can find of the motley collection of his supporters. He said that this was an explosive issue and proceeded to make an explosive speech. The hon. Member represents a constituency in the Principality, where we have the Welsh Guards, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Welsh Border Regiment and other regiments with "Welsh" in their name. From time to time he even carries a leek about with him. How extraordinary then that he should wish to destroy the same territorial link which is indicated in the phrase "Royal Ulster Regiment". If we accepted his logic we should end up with such regiments as the Royal Fusiliers (Wales), the Borderers (Wales) and the Guards (Wales).
In any case, the whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the Bill is solely concerned to recruit mem-

bers of the Catholic population into the defence regiment. That is precisely what it is not intended to do. I thought it was intended to recruit citizens of our country who live in that area, without regard to their religion—without regard to whether they are Catholics or Protestants. So, I submit that it was he and his supporters who introduced the sectarian element by saying that the Bill is designed to recruit Catholics. It is not. It is designed to recruit those who will serve our country well without reference to their religious affiliations.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

9.30 p.m.

The hon. Member also seems to see a dark and sinister plot between the Under-Secretaries of State on the Front Bench and the Stormont Government. A less sinister pair than those two hon. Gentlemen I have rarely seen. I could say many things about them but "sinister" is not a word I would use. But if indeed Her Majesty's Government at Westminster have made a prior arrangement or have reached a prior understanding with the Stormont Government about this—and I expect they have—surely the Committee should welcome it. What is wrong with the Government of this country seeking to reach an understanding with the Government of Northern Ireland, who are required by law to administer the Province? The Northern Ireland Government are accepted by this House as the lawful authority running that part of the United Kingdom. It is surely the right procedure that Ministers in this House should reach an understanding with the lawful, elected authorities of Northern Ireland before bringing in a Bill which will affect that part of the United Kingdom.

When I first heard of this Amendment, I thought that it was a creature of the Race Relations Board. I thought that, since there were difficulties over recruiting Scottish housekeepers, we were going to have difficulties about recruiting Ulster policemen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are obviously caught on a very sore point and do not like it. I can think of no reason at all why the word "Ulster" should not be included in the name of a regiment which we all hope will succeed.

I conclude with a simple thought. Those who support the Amendment, particularly the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, have done so because at the back of their minds they do not want the regiment at all. They do not want Ulster—they want union with Ireland. They do not want to defend Ulster. They want to see it taken into the Irish Republic. The great majority in this House and in the country are utterly opposed to them on that account. The Government are opposed to them as well. Therefore, when the Division comes, some of the Irish Mafia will no doubt vote against the Government but the great majority in this House will support the Bill.

Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) referred to the Mafia. Am I not right in assuming that we are discussing Northern Ireland and not Sicily?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Richard: I have listened to every word in the debate and after two and a half hours it seems to me that perhaps those of us who have been at the receiving end of the brickbats should be entitled to say something.
First, I want to say to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that, whatever reasons there may have been for Her Majesty's Government having eventually lighted on the title, "Ulster Defence Regiment", few of those reasons found themselves in his speech. If the cause he has at heart is really what he expresses it to be—the desire to see that the regiment ends up as a balanced force in which the minority of the Province participate—his speech has not helped. On the contrary, it will prove, when read in Northern Ireland, to be the most enormous hindrance.
I must also say to the hon. Member, who is not speaking from inexperience——

Mr. MacDermot: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early, but terminology is important. He talked about the minority of the Province. The Province is Ulster and the Catholics are not a minority in Ulster. They are a minority

in Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend, speaking as he does on behalf of the Government, will cease to refer to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland as the Province.

Mr. Richard: I think that the substance of my hon. and learned Friend's correction is almost certainly right, but I am bound to say that that was a somewhat semantic interruption which did not help the general tenor of what I am trying to say. If one is to approach this subject with any degree of objectivity, one may try to bring the temperature down somewhat and take two or three steps back from the debate.
Of course there were discussions and consultations between the British Government and the Northern Ireland Government. The Northern Ireland Government is the body which is constitutionally charged—it may not have been wholly successful—with the Government of Northern Ireland. The British Parliament has not yet invoked Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act and I sincerely hope that we will never have cause to invoke that Act, because if there is one situation which makes me shudder, it is the possibility of direct rule by Westminster of Northern Ireland.
I cannot believe that any of my hon. Friends, however strongly they may feel about such matters as the Title to the Bill, or certain provisions in the Bill, would want to go that far. [Interruption.] There may be one or two of my hon. Friends who disagree with me, but I think that the great majority of my hon. Friends, and I am sure the majority of the country, would agree with me about that.
If that is right, the Government had a responsibility to consult. They had to consult. They had to discuss matters with the Stormont Government. They would have been failing in their duty if they had not done so. It is also true that, as a result of those consultations and as a result of those discussions, certain proposals emerged, and in due course I may come to the specific proposals, both for and against.
I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is in her seat. She told us today how dreadful this name was, how appalling it was that the British Government had alighted


upon this connotation of the words "Ulster" and "Defence" and she said that this had ruined the force before it started. That did not exactly seem to go with what she said on Second Reading:
I do not want to spend much time on the title. There are much more important things in the Bill which need to be dealt with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1969; Vol. 791, c. 1426.]
That is absolutely right. There is no great legal or constitutional significance in the use of the word "Ulster" in the title of the Bill; it is a description of the force. The words "Ulster Defence Regiment" are the title of the force. They are not intended to, and nor do they, impart any constitutional change; nor do they have any legal or constitutional significance for Northern Ireland.
It tends to be overlooked in this whole dispute that this new force is to be part of the British Army. As such, there is no more significance about using the word "Ulster" in relation to the Ulster Defence Regiment than there has been in using the word "Ulster" in certain other regiments in the British Army.

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Roebuck rose——

Mr. Richard: I will not give way.

Mr. Roebuck: Why not?

Mr. Richard: I will tell my hon. Friend why not. It is because there are certain hon. Members from whom I am prepared to take lessons in parliamentary demeanour, but he is not one of them; perhaps he will restrain himself.
The word "Ulster" has been used in Army units or sub-units. Until very recently, in the Regular Army there was a regiment with the name "Royal Ulster Rifles". In March, 1968, it amalgamated with two other Northern Ireland regiments to become the Royal Irish Rangers.
As regards Territorial Army volunteer reserve regiments, there are the 102nd Ulster and Scottish Light Air Defence Regiment, which has "Ulster" in the title, here associated not with anything south of the Border but something from Scotland; the 6th Battalion Royal Ulster Rifles, still a Territorial Army unit in Northern Ireland; the 40th Ulster Signal Regiment, formed in 1967——

Mr. Delargy: Mr. Delargy rose——

Mr. Richard: May I just finish this part of my speech, and then I shall willingly give way to my hon. Friend.
There is HQ 152 Ulster Regiment, formed in 1967 from five units and sub-units, four of which already have the word "Ulster" in the title. Therefore, if one wants to import some kind of sinister significance into the use of the word "Ulster" the place one should not go is the title of regiments that have been in the British Army in the immediate and recent past.

Mr. Delargy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has mentioned the Royal Ulster Rifles and various other regiments. Will he tell us the date of the foundation of those regiments and whether or not they existed before the Northern Ireland Government existed? Since he is so keen on the word "Ulster", will my hon. Friend accept a verbal Amendment and let us call the force the "Two-thirds of Ulster Defence Regiment"?

Mr. Richard: I could not accept that title.
With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention, of the regiments to which I referred, some of which are Territorial Army and some of which until very recently were in the Regular Army, no fewer than three were formed in 1967 and the early part of 1968—

Mr. Delargy: Based on old regiments.

Mr. Richard: They may affiliate to old regiments, but the point is that this force is part of the British Regular Army and there is nothing sinister in the use of the word "Ulster". It has been used on a number of occasions in the recent past and has not more significance in this respect than that.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose——

Mr. Richard: I should like to go a little further, and then I shall be pleased to give way to my hon. Friend.
It is significant that on the day the White Paper was published, when I was in Belfast, among other things to try to gauge the initial reaction of various sections of the population to the Government's proposals for the setting up of the Ulster Defence Regiment, while there


were, naturally, criticisms from different groups of some of the provisions in the White Paper the one criticism I did not hear was of the use of the word "Ulster" in the title. It is a complaint which has come in more recently as perhaps people have considered and taken up positions, perhaps too firm and definite positions, on the title.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he take it from me—as he was in Northern Ireland at the time—that objection to the title was the first objection to the force raised in this House by me the day the White Paper was announced?
My hon. Friend gave a detailed coverage of the links with various regiments in the Army. I can see that this is very much part of this case. The point he has yet to deal with, and the point we want dealt with, is the other connotations of "Ulster", starting with the Ulster Volunteer Force of 1912 and going through the B Specials and the organisation that was founded.

Mr. Richard: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall not forget the B Specials in the course of my remarks.
As to my hon. Friend's first point, the complaint may have been made here when the White Paper was published. I was then sitting in the Visitors' Gallery of the Parliament in Stormont. It should go on record that the initial reaction of the Opposition in Stormont was not a complaint about the use of the word "Ulster". Their reaction may have been on different grounds, but that was certainly not one of the main grounds.
9.45 p.m.
In her speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) had this matter in just about the right perspective. Of course she has strong views about the Bill. I would expect her to have. With her history, her political background, her experience, entering this House in the way she did and representing the people that she does from that part of the United Kingdom that she does, it would be ludicrous if she did not have strong and passionate views about the Bill. But her initial reaction on 19th November was right. It was, "There is the title, of course, but let us

get on with more important things." That is what she then did, and very effectively—she moved on to more important things.

Miss Devlin: Miss Devlin rose——

Mr. Richard: Therefore, it is important that one should try to get the significance of the title and the use of the word "Ulster" in that title into some more rational and sensible perspective.

Miss Devlin: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I had asked him before and had decided not to rise, but he repeated the point.
I started by saying tonight that this is a minor point. When I first stated, as I still do, that the title, compared with the rest of the Bill, was a minor point, right hon. Members on the Front Bench agreed. Therefore, my only point is that, whereas hon. Members on this side have put forward strong arguments, no strong argument is given for the retention, and right hon. Members see it, as we see it, as basically a minor point. Why not, therefore, give way to the strength of feeling on a minor point and let us get on to the more important points?

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend makes that point for the third or fourth time tonight. If she really regards it in that light, to take 40 minutes to move an Amendment followed by a debate for nearly three hours on a point which is now regarded as something of no significance or consequence, does not impress me very much.
I would urge the House to look at the substance and not the shadow of the Amendment. As I said earlier, there were discussions and consultations with the Northern Ireland Government. Of course there were. It would be quite untrue—I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was suggesting it, but that he was asking a question, which I will try to answer—for anyone to suggest that there was any kind of secret compact between the British Government and the Northern Ireland Government. Indeed, such discussions as have taken place have been in an extraordinarily open, frank and indeed overt rather than covert manner.
My hon. Friend's second question was whether the House of Commons, Parliament, was not able to pass Amendments.


Of course Parliament can do that; it can always do that. When I was sitting four seats further back, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and I—I not nearly half so well, of course—were making much the same points on a Bill on boundaries, namely, that Parliament is sovereign. It is still sovereign, and no one has altered its sovereignty. By using the word "Ulster" in the title no one is seeking to fetter the unfettered and undoubted sovereignty of the House of Commons.
My hon. Friends should consider the substance and not the shadow. It would be quite wrong for anyone to try to draw up a balance sheet and say, "This accommodates one section of the community and this accommodates another section." Not only would it be wrong, but I would be the last person to do it at all or have thought to do it had it not been for one thing. That is that a great deal of the debate today, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and others on the other side has seemed to suggest that, somehow or other, all that is happening here is that the B Specials are to be continued under another name.
That is the gravamen of the attack that is made upon the Government's policies. I beg my hon. Friend to let us try to look at it for once in a fairly calm and objective way. There are at least a dozen differences. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not discussing that."] We are discussing the proposal to call this force the Ulster Defence Regiment in the context of the speeches which have been made against the Government's proposals tonight.
Let me give those differences. The first is that the new regiment is a part of the British Army and not an auxiliary police force. The second is that the call-out for the force, specified in the Bill, can only be on the authority of the Army.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I submit, Mr. Irving, that there is a later Amendment which deals with the point that my hon. Friend is now on about, that what he is saying is wholly out of order on Amendment No. 1, and that it would be most unfair to the Committee if the later

Amendment could not be moved before the Minister gave his reply?

The Chairman: Nothing that I have heard the Minister say to date is out of order. He must, of course, relate all his remarks to the question of the Amendment, which concerns the title of the force. As long as he does that, he will be in order.

Mr. Richard: That is precisely what I am trying to do, Mr. Irving.
It has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and other hon. Members tonight that somehow, as part of an unholy agreement made between the Government here and the Government in Northern Ireland, this is the title that was chosen and that we should have known better. That is the attack that has been made. All I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is that it would be worth while for a moment to draw up the balance sheet and look at the one side and at the other. [Interruption.] I am astounded that hon. Friends of mine below the Gangway do not want to hear this balance sheet drawn up.
Let us do it now. The first difference is that the Ulster Defence Regiment is to be a part of the Army and not an auxiliary police force. The second is that the call-out for the force is specified in the Bill and is only to be on the authority of the Army. Thirdly, there is a Regular Army presence in the force down to battalion level. The fourth point is that the size of the force, as compared with the old Ulster Special Constabulary, is reduced from 8,500 down to a ceiling——

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Surely, Mr. Irving, the hon. Gentleman cannot advance arguments relating to the size of the force when there are several later Amendments dealing with this point—Amendment No. 19, for instance, and, I think, Amendment No. 20. Is not the Minister prejudicing the discussion of those Amendments if he goes into the facts and implies that the Committee has already come to a decision on them?

The Chairman: As long as the hon. Gentleman does not elaborate these matters, he is perfectly in order.

Mr. John Lee: Further to the point of order——

The Chairman: I determined that it was not a point of order affecting the debate.

Mr. Richard: I am not attempting to elaborate any of those items. I am merely answering the criticism that, somehow, the Government have entered into a dishonourable agreement with the Government of Northern Ireland. I am showing those who advanced that argument—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) would not have said it, but many hon. Members on this side have said it.
It is important, therefore, to look at what a mythical balance sheet would show. The next point that it would show is that the new force cannot be used for crowd or riot control. That is specific. Assurances have been given.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. There cannot be two rules of order, Mr. Irving, one for Ministers and one for back benchers. There will be plenty of opportunity later in the Committee for the Minister to deploy the important arguments which he now deploying. On the present Amendment, may I, with respect, say that I cannot imagine that in any of the speeches which have been made from the back benches to date, it would have been possible to regard the statements made by the Minister as coming within the rules of order.

The Chairman: There is only one rule of order. Anything that I heard during the debate in line with what the Minister has been saying would have been in order.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. For the convenience of the Committee, would it be helpful if we rehearsed all the arguments that have been put forward and to which the Minister says he is replying?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Richard: I am sorry if I have upset some of my hon. Friends. One argument advanced against the Government's position is that somehow or other a dishonourable agreement has been

reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. I trust that my hon. Friends will look at the substance of this and not at the shadow. The shadow is the title. The substance comprises the points which, for some extraordinary reason, my hon. Friends do not appear to wish to hear.
I was about to refer to a much more onerous training obligation and, therefore, to consequential health obligations. Arms will no longer be kept at home as a normal matter of duty, save in exceptional circumstances. Military law will be applicable to the force. It is not at present. Further——

Mr. McGuire: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Irving, I suggest that the Minister has already been allowed sufficient latitude. As one who has listened to the whole of the debate, I suggest that the discussion has been connected with the title and has had nothing to do with the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. Would you keep him within the bounds of order, the order to which back benchers must subscribe?

The Chairman: I can only confirm that what the Minister is saying is in order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Chairman: One at a time, please.

Mr. Richard: On a point of order. I indicated that there were no less than 12 points that I wanted to raise. It may assist the Committee——

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. I hope that we will not have a debate on points of order.

Mr. Richard: I was hoping to assist the Committee. If it is convenient, I will leave the remainder of the points that I intended to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—until a later point in argument. In the Government's view, it is important to look at the substance of the agreement rather than at the shadow; and, as I said, the shadow is the title.

Mr. W. Howie: On a point of order. I am anxious to vote against the Government on this issue. However, the enthusiasm with which my hon. Friends


are preventing the Minister from replying is making me unreasonably sympathetic towards the Government. I hope that they will allow the Minister to continue, so that I may make up my mind.

The Chairman: That is an interesting observation, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Richard: I agree, Mr. Irving, that it is not a point of order, though it is a point of encouragement.
Looking at the substance of the proposal, the Government consider that the use of the word "Ulster" is, frankly, unimportant. There are respectable military precedents for the use of the word in other regiments of the British Army. It is for this and the other reasons I have given that the Government have decided in favour of using this word.

Mr. Howie: Before my hon. Friend resumes his seat, would he say who, in the discussions that took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, first had the idea of calling it the Ulster Defence Regiment? Did we suggest it, or did it come out in the general to and fro of debate?

Mr. Richard: I said that there had been discussions and consultations between the two Governments. Further than that my hon. Friend, who is experienced in these matters, will not expect any Front Bench spokesman to go.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: There was one point on which I agreed with the Under-Secretary of State in his pugnacious reply to a pugnacious debate, and that was when he said that the title of the regiment had a descriptive rather than a constitutional significance. Both before and after listening to the debate it has seemed to me that in choosing a title for the regiment it would be wise to be guided both by current opinion and by past practice——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Richard.]

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed. That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Goodhart: I was glad that the Under-Secretary also referred to the distinguished record of the Royal Ulster Rifles, alongside whom I had once the honour to serve. On Second Reading, it was said that Catholics and Protestants had served in this regiment in harmony and with common distinction. It is true that this regiment was formed before 1920, but many of the units to which the Under-Secretary of State referred were raised after 1920 and, whether there are 4,000 or 6,000 men in the Ulster Defence Regiment, during the Second World War far more than 6,000 Catholics served in units and regiments bearing the title "Ulster".
While past practice would seem to favour the use of the title Ulster, it would also appear that current opinion is not wholly against it. Earlier this evening I looked in the telephone directory for Northern Ireland under the heading "Ulster", and found column after column of firms and associations bearing the title Ulster. There is the Ulster Anti-Prohibition Association, which, I imagine, has wide support in all sections of the community. There is the Ulster Federation of Homing Pigeons' Society, which, again, I imagine has wide support in all sections of the community. There is the Ulster Teachers' Union, a body which is, I imagine, as militant as the teachers' union in my constituency.
There is not one of these associations in which the question of changing the title is a matter——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Goodhart: Very well, Mr. Irving. It would not seem to me that at this moment there is much uncontrolled current protest against the use of the word "Ulster" in Northern Ireland.
Not much has been said this evening about the alternative title put forward in the Amendment. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds turned his mind to this point.


I share the view that the Government might suffer some embarrassment if the word "Territorial" were to be accepted in the Bill. In the past, they have been almost as anxious to show that this new regiment has no connection with the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve as they have been to show that the Ulster Defence Regiment is not the Ulster Special Constabulary with a different name.
The reason for this embarrassment is not very hard to find, because the events in Ulster have made a nonsense of the oft-repeated thesis that home defence is unnecessary. Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in his Second Reading speech reminded the House that Northern Ireland is not the only part of this country where terrorists blow up water mains.

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman also tell the Committee that I said that because the Welsh Nationalists have been blowing up Liverpool's water supplies there was no need for me to demand the creation of a special force to deal with the Welsh Nationalists? I felt that we had an Army to deal with that situation.

Mr. Goodhart: But it leads me to think that we need a force exactly of the sort we had in TAVR III which the Government have decided to scrap. The Government do not like to be reminded that terrorism and violence could happen a great deal closer to Westminster than Belfast and the word "Territorial" is an active embarrassment to them.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that this Amendment was a test of the Government's good faith. But from the way in which he put his views to the Committee and from the aggressive and inflammatory remarks by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), it became plain that this could be counted upon not only as a test of good faith, but also as a test of strength. If, after the speeches we have heard, the Government give way to the views put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Lady, then it would be taken by a majority of the inhabitants of Ulster as being a surrender to political intimidation——

Mr. Michael Foot: Did the hon. Gentleman say "intimidation"?

Mr. Goodhart: Yes, intimidation.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is describing a debate which we are conducting to establish our rights as "intimidation", he should withdraw.

Mr. Goodhart: It looked to me as though it was having just that effect on the Under-Secretary.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), in an interjection which I took to be jocular, said that the regiment ought to be called the "Two-Thirds of Ulster Regiment". If violence comes to Ulster and there is no adequate defence against it, not just two-thirds of Ulster will suffer, but both communities of Ulster and every member of those communities.

Mr. Brian Walden: I came here, no doubt against the dictates of common sense, to vote for the Government should there be a Division. That is still my intention, for very much the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
What surprises me, and has been surprising me for the past three hours, is how men can agree on the same issues and even go into the same Lobby, and yet arrive at a different conclusion about the wisdom of the Government's course of action.
I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend when he says, "God help us if ever we have directly to govern Northern Ireland." Once we get ourselves into the position of talking regularly about Northern Ireland, we shall never have time to talk about anything else.
The semantics leave me cold. I am interested only in what my hon. Friend has said. He said, first, that the matter was a very unimportant, shadowy one and that the substance was the force itself and what it could do. I agree with him. Then he went on to say that there had been no agreement with the Northern Ireland Government which was binding upon Her Majesty's Government and that the Government did not come here having tied the hands of the House of Commons in some sort of pact with the Stormont Government. That is an assurance which, necessarily, I accept.
I note, too, that in the course of earlier exchanges the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) indicated, very sensibly, that he would not care fourpence if he found himself serving in a body called the Northern Ireland Defence Force. I took the hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean that that was also the view of the protestant community.
What on earth has kept us here for three hours? If the Government think that the matter is shadowy and has no substance, if no deal has been done with Stormont, if a senior protestant Ulsterman who has the honour of being a Grand Master of the Orange Order agrees that he could not care less about the title of the force, what prevents the Government saying, "We think that you are a pack of idiots to care whether it is called 'Ulster', 'Northern Ireland', or 'Six Counties'. But, since you do, since time is precious, and since the whole issue is a crashing bore, we will give way and substitute the name 'Northern Ireland'."?

Mr. Henry Clark: I am in considerable agreement with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) has said, and I am very happy to say so. We have had the most ridiculous debate. We have had the maximum of semantics and the minimum of fact.
The only fact which seems to have been applied by anyone who might have had a chance of knowing came out in the course of the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). However, she is not famous for touring her constituency and listening to the voices——

Mr. John Mendelson: Get on with the debate.

The Chairman: Order. It is the Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Clark: I am trying to establish the facts on which we are arguing. The case has been put forward from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that the words "Ulster" and "Defence" are highly charged. I am asking on what evidence that is based.
I assure those hon. Member, if they accept the words of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and her associates, that they are not typical of the vast bulk of people in Northern Ireland, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.
For goodness' sake, let us try to get the matter straight. What are hon. Members opposite complaining about? What is the charge? What is so explosive? Is it the word "Ulster" or is it the word "Defence"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Ulster."] Some have one view and others another—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members have said that it was "Ulster", some have said it was "Defence", and yet others have said it was the combination of the two. Which is it?—[An HON. MEMBER: "The combination of the two."] Are there any other bids? Is it "Ulster", "Defence", or the combination of the two? We are dealing with a pedantic argument for the sake of argument. Various hon. Members below the Gangway are seeking to demonstrate their feelings by voting against the Government on a minor and unimportant point.
10.15 p.m.
The word "Ulster" is preferred because it is a far older word, with longer and greater associations than the words "Northern Ireland". The concept of Northern Ireland was never popular with the Unionists of that day. We have always been Ulstermen, we are proud to continue to be Ulstermen, and the country in which we live is Ulster.
We have had that wonderfully pedantic point put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) which comes at about class 2 in a primary school, namely, that soon after learning what is the longest river in the world, children are taught how many provinces there are in Ireland and how many counties there are in those provinces—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"] The division of Ireland into provinces has had no administrative or constitutional significance for over 100 years. The division, as it stands today, was a purely British institution established in Ireland about the mid-18th century. Certainly, before that Ulster ran down to the Boyne. There is no doubt that at some time Sligo was included in Ulster. Then, going back much further, there was the smaller area over which the writ of the Earl of Ulster ran. At times, the Earl of Ulster had no jurisdiction over Tyreconnell though he did over Tyrone,


and it was doubtful whether he had much authority over County Antrim.
Frankly, the concept of Ulster is that area north of Lough Erne, the Carlingford Mountains and the Carlingford Lough, and its centre has always been somewhere near the Maghera or Dungannon, somewhere near the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
To talk in a purely pedantic fashion about the English definition of the mid-18th century as to what Ulster consists of is paying scant tribute to a magnificent tradition which goes back much further indeed.
The Ulster Defence Regiment is entirely appropriate because it is about the area which has always been called Ulster and it is about defence. I will not go into the need for defence at length. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) quoted five attacks on pipelines going to Liverpool and said that they have not needed a defence regiment yet. I have seen 300 serious incidents in Northern Ireland and over 1,000 less serious incidents in five years. Putting that against the Liverpool incidents will perhaps cause the hon. Gentleman to think again. I know that there is every possibility that these attacks may go on, but I will not go into details.
The Bill is about Ulster and about defence and it will be a regiment. If we wanted to carry on an association with the B Specials, surely we could call them the Ulster Special Battalions. Then we could either call them the Specials or the Bs. It is clear that few hon. Members below the Gangway know Northern Ireland at all, because the one thing they are never called is the Ulster Special Constabulary. They are either the B men or the Specials, and occasionally in official documents the U.S.C. The word "Ulster" does not immediately connect them with the B Specials. Most of the arguments put from below the Gangway fall to the ground. They are either pedantic or baseless.
When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) takes both hands out of his pockets, because he usually waves only one hand at any one time, the temperature is getting very high indeed over a minor point.
There is no question but that in Ireland we pay considerable attention to flags, emblems, symbols of various sorts, and names. Perhaps the oldest force with which we can connect the new Ulster Defence Regiment is that famous force which was based on my constituency, the Knights of the Red Branch. These symbols change their meaning as time goes on, Only a few years ago Drogheda Town Council passed a resolution saying that they were going to change their robes and wear green robes and give up England's cruel reign. Even names and symbols change from time to time, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster likes to advise her friends that the word Ulster has a sinister significance for the people of Northern Ireland, that is purely her invention.

Mr. Fitt: I had almost despaired of being called to speak to the Amendment. I had visions of being lynched when I returned to my constituency, but now that I have been given the opportunity to speak I shall bring a few points to the attention of the Government.
In moving the Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) put forward an unanswerable case, and the Minister's attempted reply in no way allays our suspicions about this name and how it was arrived at. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster mentioned a number of organisations in Northern Ireland which arrogate to themselves the term Ulster, and she explained why this word is so offensive to the ears of the minority.
Perhaps I can tell my hon. Friend, and all those on this side of the Committee who support our views, that only last week letters were dropping through the letter boxes of Catholic homes in Belfast saying, "Get out or be burned out. Ulster Volunteer Force". That is one reason why we are so opposed to this term.
There are great precedents for the establishment of this regiment and attitude adopted by the Government. We recognise that Unionist Governments have attempted not merely since 1920, but since the partitioning of Ireland, to arrogate to themselves the term Ulster, and that for almost a century they have tried to claim that the part of Ireland where they are in the majority is Ulster, as they interpret the word.
I commend to the attention of the Committee the fact that in 1912, before Ireland was partitioned, and when people first began to talk about partitioning Ireland, Sir Edward Carson, later Lord Carson, leading the Ulster Unionists in an attack against this Government, said:
We went into the figures of the population in every town, village and hamlet in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan to ascertain if it would be possible to govern the Provinces of Ulster from Belfast. We found this to be impossible.
They had to settle for six counties because they found it impossible to govern the Province of Ulster.
They then set about calling the small area, the six counties, Ulster, but since partition, since the Parliament of Northern Ireland was set up, every Bill which has been passed has referred to the Government of Northern Ireland to the State of Northern Ireland. Since I arrived in this House three years ago, and in fact long before that, every Bill that goes through this House has a Clause saying that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, or that it does not. Thus, officially it is the Northern Ireland State. It has nothing to do with Ulster.
I wonder whether the Minister took into account the fact that another dangerous precedent has been created by the terminology and the nomenclature of the Bill. It has been called the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken of their military associations. The Unionist Members, in particular, have said that the term Ulster has long and honourable associations in the annals of British military history with the Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force.
We have been told that under the Bill it will be a British regiment. It will be one of the forces of the Crown, and will be under the command of this House and subject to its opinions. But is it recognised that this is the first regiment in the annals of British history from which some Irishmen will be excluded? The men of this regiment must live in Northern Ireland. They must live within the six partitioned counties of Northern Ireland. Ulstermen from Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal, and the rest of the 26 counties will not be permitted to join. This has never happened before.

Mr. Henry Clark: Mr. Henry Clark rose——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not giving way.

Mr. Fitt: All afternoon I have been reading the Ireland Act of 1949 under which dual nationality was given to the people of the Republic of Ireland. Under the British Nationality Act of the same year dual nationality was given to the people of the Irish Republic. It would seem that we are acting in contravention of both those Acts. People in the Irish Republic can claim British citizenship and the right to join a British regiment or any part of the Armed Forces—Army, Navy, or Air Force.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Member is making a pendantic point. Has it struck him that there is a strong residential qualification in respect of all British regiments which Irishmen join? The Irishmen have to live with the regiment. In exactly the same way, there is a residential qualification for the new regiment. The men who join it will have to live with the regiment, because it will be in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: That is absolutely untrue. A man living in Dublin today can arrive in London tomorrow and join a British regiment. He can join the Navy or the Air Force as well. We are calling this force the Ulster Defence Regiment and we are told that it is a regiment of the British Army. The Secretary of State was not in the House to hear the cogent argument put forward by some hon. Members of his own party. As I have said, we would seem to be contravening the Ireland Act of 1949 and the British Nationality Act of the same year by effectively preventing Irishmen from joining a British regiment.
At the back of my mind I hear the words "The Connaught Rangers". I suggest that if people from the Republic of Ireland are not acceptable to this new regiment there is no reason why other people from the Republic of Ireland should serve in any other British regiment. I hope that they will take these words in the way in which I mean them this evening. If they are not allowed to join this new regiment, although they can claim dual citizenship—if men from Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal are effectively precluded from joining it—I suggest that


others from the Republic of Ireland should consider the conditions under which they are now serving in other British forces.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said that he had no great objection to the Bill and that time alone would tell whether it would have an effect on recruitment. Time is the one thing that we have not got. Yesterday afternoon I was at a meeting of the Civil Rights Association in Belfast, which was attended by between 300 and 400 delegates representing people from all over Northern Ireland, who voiced the strongest objections to the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member will recall that at any rate, when the new force was announced in Stormont on 24th November, nine Opposition Members took part in the debate and not a single Member objected to the name.

Mr. Fitt: I agree. I was in this House when that force was announced. But since then there have been prevarications. We have heard the saga of the application form. Was it sent out to let the B Specials enter the force? Was it not an application form but only a memorandum to the B Specials to get them into the force? These are the reasons that we are objecting. Those Opposition Members were so relieved, when they heard of the White Paper, that the B Specials were to be effectively disbanded, as they thought, that they gave the announcement a cautious welcome.
I recognise that the Unionist Party has a problem, that it must try to contain the backlash from its own extremists. In the corridors of this House, talking to my hon. Friends, I hear that there will not be 6,000 members of this force, that they can see the maximum number being 4,000, but, in Northern Ireland, the Prune Minister and his cohorts in the Cabinet there say that there will be 6,000, and possibly more if they have anything to do with it.
That is why we object not only to the name, but to many other points which have been mentioned here today. I have lodged the strongest objections, on behalf of my constituents and thousands of people in Northern Ireland to this further

attempt by the Unionist Party to arrogate to itself the historical term of the Province of Ulster.
While listening to some hon. Members opposite, I thought that, for these past 12 months, at the minimum—the maximum is much longer—I have been asking this Parliament to allay some of the suspicions and dispel some of the fears of the minority in Ulster. After hearing the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I am beginning to rethink that request. When they approach the problem of the minority in Ulster as they have tonight, I can foresee a great deal of trouble. Now that the Minister has been made aware of the strong objections of the Committee to the title of the regiment, he should resolve to take no decision, but should make further representations to the Northern Ireland Government to bring about a term less offensive to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish merely to emphasise the point which I made just now, that the name has been blown up out of all proportion, and that, when the matter was debated at Stormont on 12th November, of the nine Opposition Members who commented on the force, some welcomed it and some did not: but no one objected to the name. So this is a rather shallow opposition point which has been drummed up here.

Mr. Delargy: The Committee will be relieved to hear that I shall take one minute only, for a word of personal explanation, which may, nevertheless, be of interest.
When the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) wound up for the Opposition, he repeated a remark which I had made, which he said was a jocular remark, and, quite honestly, put entirely the wrong interpretation on it. He has just told me so. But the Committee too might have put a wrong interpretation on it. This highlights the confusion about the word "Ulster".
I suggested that the Bill should be called the "Two-Thirds Ulster Defence Regiment Bill". The hon. Gentleman, and, no doubt, others, thought that I was referring to two-thirds of the people, that is, the Protestants, who live in Northern Ireland. I was not. I was referring to


two-thirds of Ulster, that is, the Six Counties, as opposed to the three counties which are in the Republic.
I might add that it would have been greatly for the convenience of the Committee if the Secretary of State had been here earlier to hear the arguments. It would have been of still greater convenience if the Under-Secretary of State had taken the trouble to reply to at least one argument and had showed a little more modesty for a new junior Minister.

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) referred to the HANSARD for the Northern Ireland Parliament, which he probably studies closely. He will have read copies of HANSARD subsequent to that which he cited and he will know that the main reason why Opposition Members there agreed to and in part welcomed the Bill was, as they said later, that they had not read the White Paper itself, while even Unionist Members complained that Mr. Porter, the Minister of Home Affairs rambled, raved and stuttered his way through his presentation of the Bill to such an extent that no one in the House understood him. Opposition members, to their shame, did not ask him to repeat his explanation.
My hon. Friends say that it is not necessary for me to reply to hon. Members opposite, but if hon. Members opposite persist in attacking me, as they are perfectly entitled to do, I am entitled

to reply, and the attacks have been relevant to the title of this force.

The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that what I said was disgusting and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) said that my facts were doubtful because of my politics. My assertions of the facts were based not on my opinions, but on the opinions of Mr. Wallace Clark, the hon. Member's brother. Many were based on the opinions of the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley of the constituent bodies which bore titles similar to that of the body which we are discussing.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): The hon. Lady is referring to someone she calls the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley. Am I to understand that this gentleman has now acquired a reputable reverence degree and a doctorate?

Miss Devlin: I always refer to the gentleman by his title.
I was interested in the Under-Secretary's "half a dozen differences". However, for all his talk he did not answer one of my questions. Until the Ministry of Defence sorts out who is blundering and who is lying, I shall continue to put the questions until I have them answered one way or the other.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 36, Noes 163.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[10.38 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Judd, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Latham, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurence


Brooks, Edwin
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Lubbock, Eric
Roebuck, Roy


Delargy, Hugh
MacDermot, Niall
Rose, Paul


Dickens, James
McGuire, Michael
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Miss Bernadette Devlin and


Hobden, Dennis
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Gerard Fitt.


Howie, W.






NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Boston, Terence
Concannon, J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Buchan, Norman
Currie, G. B. H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bence, Cyril
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Chapman, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Binns, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Blackburn, F.
Clark, Henry
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Coleman, Donald
Dell, Edmund




Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kitson, Timothy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dobson, Ray
Lawson, George
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Bartersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pounder, Rafton


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pym, Francis


Eden, Sir John
Lomas, Kenneth
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCann, John
Richard, Ivor


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Finch, Harold
McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Rowlands, E.


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Goodhart, Philip
MacPherson, Malcolm
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maginnis, John E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Manuel, Archie
Temple, John M,


Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thornton, Ernest



Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Varley, Eric G.


Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Waddington, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hooley, Frank
More, Jasper
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)




Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Whitaker, Ben


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Albert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice



Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Neil McBride and


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'such' in line 9 and insert 'no more than 4,000'.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): With this Amendment we shall take Amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after 'Parliament', insert—
'up to a maximum of 4,000'.
and Amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
Provided that such number shall not exceed 4,000 all ranks on establishment and that such number may only be increased up to a maximum of 6,000 all ranks by order subject to approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Orme: Many of my hon. Friends and myself consider these to be the major Amendments which we shall debate. We feel that they are of such importance that we intend to make a case to which we hope the Minister will be able to give a more substantial reply than that which he gave on the last Amendment.
In considering the numbers in the proposed new regiment, we are dealing with what many people regard as the heart of the matter. If there is to be such a force, we want to see a democratic force on non-sectarian lines. May I have the attention of hon. Members——

The Temporary Charman: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the words of the hon. Member.

Mr. Orme: Thank you, Sir Alfred. This is a matter of some substance, and I have the right to ask that all hon. Members listen to the case.
When we talk about the size of the regiment we are dealing with what many people feel goes to the core of the argument, because in many instances the size determines exactly its eventual effectiveness and deployment. I am glad to carry an hon. Gentleman opposite with me in this regard. Many of us cannot see the need for such a regiment, particularly as we have the British Army in Northern Ireland carrying out defence, and especially as we know that it could be called upon at any time to be deployed if there were any threat to the security of Northern Ireland. But if the Government consider that it is necessary that

such a force be set up the numbers go to the heart of the question.
The first evidence in support of my argument on the numbers in paragraph 171(a) of the Hunt Committee's Report, which says:
a locally recruited part-time force under the command of the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, should be raised as soon as possible for such duties as may be laid upon it. We consider that its strength need not be as high as that of the U.S.C. and suggest that about 4,000 should be sufficient;".
Why is no total written into the Bill? Not only has the Hunt Committee recommendation not been accepted, but in the Bill there is no total. We were referred on Second Reading to the White Paper and a total possibly rising to 6,000. But within the Bill there is no reference to a total. It is precisely because we want to see a ceiling of 4,000 put on the proposed regiment that we are pressing the matter so hard tonight.
We would like to know from the Government the specific reason why they have moved away from the Hunt recommendation by a 50 per cent, increase. A total of 4,000 or 6,000 men under arms in Great Britain does not seem large. But proportionately to the population of the United Kingdom as a whole it would mean 240,000 men under arms, a large number under such circumstances, and not as an Army but as a para-military force for specific reasons.
The proposed rise of 2,000, from 4,000 to 6,000, is in itself a large increase above the Hunt recommendation. Why have the Government not seen fit to adhere to the Hunt recommendation? We heard on Second Reading what a welcome the Ulster Members gave to the Hunt Report, but they do not ask for implementation of the 4,000 figure.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member will, of course, know that this figure was the result, I think, of a joint working party between the two Governments. I understand the position to be that the Hunt Committee did not go into detail on this matter, as will be seen from the introduction to its report, in which the Committee said that it wished it had had considerably more time to go into the details of the matter and that its suggested figure was a very approximate one.

Mr. Orme: I appreciate that this is, in effect, an agreement between the Stormont Government and the British Government. On the previous Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) rightly referred to such negotiations as took place.
What my hon. Friends and I are saying is that in view of the time which has passed since the Hunt Committee reported we see no reason why further consideration should not be given to this matter and why Amendments cannot be made to the Bill in the House of Commons, because the situation tonight is that we are going through the actions and we have little opportunity of amending the Bill because of prior negotiations with the Stormont Government.

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend has referred frequently to a figure of 6,000 which appears to be an agreement between the two Governments. Would my hon. Friend note that no figure whatever is mentioned in the Bill? There is an open-ended commitment. Indeed, under the Bill, it would be possible to recruit as many as 10,000, 12,000 or 20,000.

Mr. Orme: I accept, as my hon. Friend says, that it could go the other way. We know that at different times in history, in different circumstances, this force has been as high as 25,000.

Mr. Richard: It is important to get this right at this stage. The ceiling of the force is controlled by Estimates. The Supplementary Estimate expressing the ceiling at 6,000 was laid before the House on 24th November. The Estimates have to come before the House each year and, therefore, the ceiling of the force is debatable each year, which it would not be if the figure appeared in the Bill.

Mr. Orme: I accept from my hon Friend that the matter is debatable, but he knows as well as I do that although his right hon. Friend explained the position in the White Paper and underwrote the figure of 6,000 on Second Reading, if we were faced with a certain situation and the Government came forward to say that they had taken action, the issue would be a fait accompli.
The figure must be fixed when the Bill is going through the House. We are now in Committee, and the principle is being

established. We have to examine why the Government appear to have seen fit to reject the Hunt recommendation and have bowed to the pressures from the Northern Ireland. Speaking for myself, there is no doubt in my mind that the Government have conceded to the Ulster Unionist backlash that unless they accepted a volunteer force in the region of 6,000 the Westminster Government would be running into trouble in getting acceptance for the Bill. This is freely felt and has been expressed on this side of the House of Commons and inside the Labour Party. We feel that we must express this view freely and openly on the Floor.
I am completely opposed to our making concessions on these lines by increasing the size of the force and establishing a force of 6,000 to satisfy a feeling of backlash from the Ulster Unionists, and those sections of the Ulster Unionists who feel that they are having their power taken away from them because their private army is being disbanded and they are struggling to maintain a paramilitary force within the Six Counties. There could be all the reforms in matters of housing and civil rights, but if in that country there is not firm security on a non-sectarian basis, social justice will never be established in Northern Ireland.
11.0 p.m.
Fears have been expressed that the old B Specials will be pressed to join this regiment. We are very concerned that that might be made easy. If the force is only 4,000 it will be of manageable proportions and it could be on a non-sectarian basis. There will have to be positive discrimination towards Roman Catholics if the force is to be constructive. This goes to the centre of the argument.
Unless we have undertakings or acceptance of this Amendment, we shall have to force it to a Division. That would prove not only to people in this country, but in Northern Ireland, that we are concerned about establishing democracy there and that we are prepared to be counted and not to leave the issue only to my hon. Friends the Member for Mid Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Many of us have been fighting on this issue for years and we shall continue to do


so until democracy is established in Northern Ireland. We are pleased to be associated with these hon. Friends in this fight.
Nothing on the Notice Paper is more important than this Amendment referring to the size of the force. I hope that a concession can be made, but I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in a position to make a concession, for there appears to be a closed book. If that is true it is a sad position. Although we may lose the fight tonight, we shall continue to fight so that the situation does not again arise in which a completely sectarian force such as the old B Specials, which excludes a large majority in Northern Ireland, is established.
My hon. Friend may worry about the Unionist backlash, but he will have to stand up to it eventually. It is better to stand up to it now in the name of a Labour Government in dignity and liberty.

Captain Orr: I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in two matters. The first is that we now come to a matter of substance and what he described as the centre of the argument—the size, and to use his word, the effectiveness, of the force. I will base what I have to say on the word "effectiveness".
The hon. Gentleman asked why we should depart from the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) answered him partly by pointing out that the Hunt Committee made its recommendations quickly and said that the figure should be about 4,000. However, the ceiling of 6,000, which was suggested on Second Reading, flows from a different source, and there is nothing sinister about it.
It flows from a perfectly open agreement made between the two Governments, an agreement about which I heard no objection when it was first announced. In other words, it flows from the joint communiqué issued by the Home Secretary, accompanied by the Minister of State, after their meetings with the Northern Ireland Cabinet on 9th and 10th October. The communiqué said:
In conveying these decisions, Northern Ireland Ministers said that they considered it essential"—

and among the things they considered essential were—
that the Ulster Special Constabulary as at present organised should remain in being until a fully effective security force was available to replace it. The Home Secretary, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, gave assurances that these requirements should be fully met within those fields for which the United Kingdom Government were responsible".
Thus, according to an agreement openly made between the two Governments, the Ulster Special Constabulary remains in being until an effective force is found to replace it.
Subsequent to that, a joint working party was set up by the two Governments to determine what an effective force would be. That is why it is correct to say that this is the centre of the argument, for unless it can be shown that the force which is about to be established is effective, as agreed between the two Governments, the U.S.C. remains in being. We are, therefore, deciding what is to be the effective force within the terms of that communiqué and on which the U.S.C. can vanish.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that the Hunt Committee suggested that it was an effective force?

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that, any more than the hon. Gentleman can bandy ancestors with me, a matter which, on another occasion, we may discuss.
The Hunt Committee made a cockshy at it in a hurry and suggested 4,000. But the joint working party, which set out to implement the joint communiqué and the agreement, recommended a force with a ceiling of something over 6,000. It is from that that this situation flows. And what is an effective force? The working party thought that it should have a ceiling of about 6,000, but I do not know the arguments on which it reached that decision.

Sir D. Glover: Who comprised the joint working party? Was it politicians or civil servants?

Captain Orr: Civil servants and soldiers. It was not at all a working party of politicians. No Unionist politician was represented on it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that Lord Hunt's Committee was motivated by party political considerations.

Captain Orr: Far from it. I have throughout accepted the recommendations of the Hunt Committee. It said that there should be an effective force. We are now discussing the size of what we mean by "effective". The working party of the two Governments to decide what was an effective force came to the conclusion that it should be about 6,000.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest that any particular weight should be attached to the opinion of a group of civil servants of Northern Ireland and Westminster, and soldiers, as to what would constitute an effective force, to use his own language?

Captain Orr: It is extraordinary to suggest that a working party set up by two Governments, and upon which senior and responsible soldiers were represented and which had a considerable time in which to work, would be less likely to come to the right decision than the Hunt Committee, which was working very quickly over a wide range. I should have thought that the joint working party would be a much better judge of the matter.
I will tell the Committee why I think the working party was probably right. Everyone will hope that conditions in Northern Ireland will be such that in the long term we would not have to keep there a regiment of 6,000 men. But let me put some considerations to the hon. Member for Salford, West who may be seriously concerned about the arguments on size. Anybody with experience will know that in a part-time force a man cannot be asked to do more than one four-hour stint in a week.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: This is a total absurdity. During the war members of the Home Guard and its predecessor, the Local Defence Volunteers, gave 20, 30, 40 and 50 hours a week because they believed in what they were doing. By the hon. Gentleman's admission, they cannot be asked for more than four hours, because they do not.

Captain Orr: I cannot accept that the conditions of total warfare are applicable to the present situation.

Mr. Ryan: A large part of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) on Second Reading consisted of painting a lurid picture of the Six Counties being in imminent danger of attack by the Fenians and the I.R.A. Surely this is a very germane point.

11.15 p.m.

Captain Orr: I was saying that it is not reasonable to expect a man in going about his ordinary business to do a stint of more than about four hours a week. In a week there are 84 hours of darkness from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., making 21 four-hour stints in the week. Military experience shows that we require a cadre of about 25 men to guard any one point. About 6,000 men are, therefore, required if there are to be 240 men each doing a four-hour stint. The argument is whether that number of 240 men is necessary.

Mr. Fitt: No.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) says "No". But the G.O.C. does not agree. He happens to think that at least that number is necessary. On the night of 19th–20th November the Ulster Special Constabulary had at least 500 men on duty, under the command of the G.O.C, 250 of them at key points. If the G.O.C. thinks that that force is necessary at present when one has a very large number of Regular troops on the ground, how much more will it be necessary if the Regular troops are relieved of their present function?

Mr. McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that this shows the wisdom of the G.O.C. in keeping the B Specials out of trouble?

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. Is he seriously saying that a G.O.C. of the Regular Army will keep men employed guarding key points simply to keep them out of mischief?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that all experience indicates that senior soldiers always try to over-insure a situation? Is that not the case in Northern Ireland?

Captain Orr: If the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) seriously thinks that the G.O.C. is over-insuring, that is an argument he can make when he comes to make his speech in the debate. It may well be that in the deployment of Regular troops there should be an over-insurance. Even with the very large number of Regular troops deployed on the ground, the G.O.C. has thought fit to use sufficient of the Ulster Special Constabulary to guard 250 key points—a ceiling of 6,000 men.

Mr. Fitt: What are the "key points" in Northern Ireland? It might apply to every shop in certain areas.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman may want to criticise the G.O.C. and his deployment, but I wish he would not do so by way of intervention in the middle of my remarks.
I should like to ask the Under Secretary of State one question about the size of the force. How does he arrive at a cost of £1 million? I am not sure why it should be so high. The deployment of the Special Constabulary that I have been describing, upon which I base my argument about the future size of the force, does not cost anything like that. I reckon that the Special Constabulary, as it is, will not cost more than £300,000 or £400,000. I cannot see how this will escalate to £1 million.
It would be interesting to know the argument. Presumably the arms held by the Special Constabulary and the huts, and so on, will be handed over to the new regiment when it is effective. I am wondering where all the extra expense is coming from. I think that this is the right point in our debate to ask the question, so perhaps the Under-Secretary will answer it now.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose——

Mr. Roebuck: Mr. Roebuck rose——

Captain Orr: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).

Sir D. Glover: I understand that the arms for the new force will be centralised. Will not a great deal of expense be incurred by a Regular contingent guarding those arms?

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend raises an important point which we can discuss on a later Amendment concerning armouries. I understand that the extra cost would not fall in respect of any Regular troops taken to guard the multiplicity of new armouries that might be required if the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Richard: I can answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman now. The whole of the expense of the force is to be borne by the British taxpayer, not by the Northern Ireland Government.

Captain Orr: By the United Kingdom taxpayer.

Mr. Richard: By the United Kingdom taxpayer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that the emoluments proposed for the new force are substantially greater than for the Ulster Special Constabulary. There is a Regular remanet being attached to the new force. It will be better equipped and clothed. It will, indeed, have some better weapons. The best estimate that the Government can make is that the total cost will be about £1 million.

Captain Orr: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I should like to do the arithmetic before saying it was satisfactory. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will do that. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) wished to raise a point.

Mr. Roebuck: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This point also interests me. I put down a new Clause on this point, but it has not been selected. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information about the transfer of accommodation and equipment? Is it proposed that the United Kingdom Government should pay the Northern Ireland Government for the accommodation and equipment which is being transferred?

Captain Orr: I cannot speak for the Northern Ireland Government, but my information is that as to arms and equipment and anything else that is required, no money would be passed.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are straying from the Amendment, which is about 4,000 men.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman has got his answer, anyway.
I have nothing to add on the numbers, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at a reasoned argument he will see that the agreement between the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Government about the terms on which the Ulster Special Constabulary should be superseded demands that the force be effective and that approximately 6,000 men are required to make it effective. If that is not done, and a less effective force, or a force which cannot be made effective, comes into being, then the Ulster Special Constabulary, of whom we in Ulster are proud, will remain.

Mr. John Mendelson: I think that in discussing this important Amendment which, as my hon. Friend said, goes to the root of the matter, and in looking back at the Minister's reply to the previous debate, we may be able to return to a situation in which the Government are able to move closer to those who support the Amendment. I do not take the view that the Government have closed their mind to all the Amendments. I base that opinion on the speech made by the Government spokesman in reply to the Second Reading debate.
Moreover, I should like to remind the Committee that during these last few difficult weeks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has conducted himself in such a way that he has received the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and of the overwhelming majority of British public opinion. There is, therefore, something to be said for that kind of working together if we can achieve it. It is in the interests of everybody, not least the Government, and above all the people in Northern Ireland, that we should achieve such co-operation.
The burden of the Amendment is not technical, but political. That the Government accept that it is a political argument is shown by their reply to the Second Reading debate. This political argument is the result of debates which have taken place in Northern Ireland, and it is those debates which we must take into account before reaching a conclusion here.
What has always disturbed me most is the impression given by the Prime

Minister of Northern Ireland, and by others in commanding positions both in the B Special Force and in the Home Department in that country, that what was intended was a simple transfer of a large majority of the B Specials to this new force. During the Second Reading debate I demanded that the Government should countermand any such intention, and I should like now to supply a little further evidence to show why the suspicion that that is to happen is justified.
Mr. Porter admitted in Stormont that the forms sent out were headed "application forms". If words have any meaning, the B Specials who received the forms were entitled to think that the forms asked them to apply for enrolment, otherwise there was no point in putting those words at the top of the form. Moreover, at the same time the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland made a number of speeches in which he appealed to the B Specials to join up.
Therefore, nobody can blame any of the members of the B Specials if, being appealed to by people in such high authority, they assumed that what was meant was a simple transfer from one force to another. That would be highly dangerous if a balanced recruitment is sought to this force—balanced in the sense in which the details will be argued in a later Amendment.
11.30 p.m.
It was felt that the agreement between the Government and those concerned with these matters meant that the Government would countermand any such impression. That is the political basis of the Amendment. As a result of these appeals from on high, giving the impression that what was meant was a simple transfer from one force to another, a number of members of the B Specials made political statements which in my opinion should disqualify them from ever being recruited into the new force.
Here I can supply some new evidence. I want to quote from the Belfast Telegraph—a newspaper which is not unsympathetic to the Government in Northern Ireland, and one which believes in fair reporting. A news item from its issue of Monday, 24th November, is headed, "U.D.R 'must be seen to be


effective'—Specials". That is a phrase that is now going to cover a multitude of sins. It goes on:
The new Ulster Defence Regiment has won the support of Ulster Special Constabulary members—'with many reservations'—an unofficial committee of Specials said last night.
I stop quoting there to comment that there obviously seems to be in existence in this force—which is supposed to be an auxiliary police force—an unofficial committee which assumes the political right to give directives to the members of the force.
This seems to be a highly dangerous kind of procedure, but it has been allowed under the commander of the force. I should have thought that a committee that tried to act in this way would have been immediately suspended from service and excluded from a force which prided itself on its discipline. But no such suspension has taken place.
I return to the report from the Belfast Telegraph:
The committee of U.S.C. men organised a meeting of Specials in the Ulster Hall some weeks ago.
Here we have an unofficial committee in what is supposed to be a disciplined auxiliary force, organising meetings of large numbers of the special force to discuss highly political questions. That is the background against which this debate must take place, and it is of the greatest seriousness. It is the kind of political atmosphere that has been built up in the special force over the years, and it is the kind of special attitude that made it the view of members of the minority group that here we were dealing not with an auxiliary police force but a party political police force—a private army of one party against the other.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Member said that this kind of thing had been built up over the years in the Ulster Special Constabulary. We know that on the threat of disbandment many meetings were held by unofficial committees in most of the forces of the British Army in recent years. Can the hon. Member quote any instance of a meeting of the Ulster Special Constabulary being held before this year?

Mr. Mendelson: I am choosing my words carefully. I said that an atmosphere had been built up over the years and that members of this force regarded themselves as politically committed to one side. The evidence is now emerging.
If I am allowed to continue with my quotation, I will quote some other statements made at this meeting and by the committee. The quotation continues:
The committee also accused Mr. Harold Wilson of wanting majority rule in Rhodesia, but on the other hand wanting minority rule in Northern Ireland.
That is the sort of statement we might hear——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendments, which are concerned with figures up to 4,000.

Mr. Mendelson: But, Sir Alfred, I am dealing here with the danger which I am asking the Government to countermand—that the impression has been created among the B Special Constabulary that there will be a direct take-over of that force into the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am, therefore, pointing out the nature of some of the leading spirits in that force.
This sort of statement about what Mr. Harold Wilson may or may not want is the sort of thing we get from the benches opposite. But for members in a special force to make a statement in which they express their opinion publicly about the new Ulster Defence Regiment and their attitude towards that regiment——

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman in this Committee, to refer to Mr. Harold Wilson?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was quoting from an article.

Mr. Mendelson: I was quite deliberately quoting from an article in the Belfast Telegraph. If one quotes one has to stick strictly to the quotation.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks to the numbers.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. It may not be within your recollection, Sir Alfred but your predecessor in the Chair, in presiding over our debate on the previous Amendment, allowed it to range enormously wide, particularly the speech of the Minister. With respect, I hope that the same indulgence will be given to back benchers.

The Temporary Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone a great deal of latitude.

Mr. Mendelson: I am following your direction, Sir Alfred, and I also agree with your last comment. I wanted to put on record that there are some people operating in this force at the moment in a highly irregular manner, and that great care has to be taken so that we do not build up the new Ulster Defence Regiment to a figure that would allow all these people to be taken over automatically.

Mr. Henry Clark: Mr. Henry Clark rose——

Mr. Mendelson: No, I want to get on, or I shall be speaking all night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time wasting."] There is no question of time wasting. There are many more important Amendments to come and I want to be as brief as I can.
What I am saying to the Government is that having agreed at the end of the Second Reading debate that if there were a choice between building up the force to a figure that might be regarded as the larger figure of the two mentioned, and having a balanced force, the Government would make the latter choice rather than the former.
I return to what the hon. Gentleman opposite said about the opinions expressed by serving officers. It is most important to remember that we can only deal here with final conclusions, and the final conclusions are that the recommendation of the Hunt Committee has not been accepted. That is something which, in my opinion, must be explained on political grounds, not on technical grounds.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I saw my hon. Friend on the Front Bench nodding when he talked about a balanced force and the

higher figure, but the point we must not forget is that Hunt recommended a balanced force of not more than 4,000.

Mr. Mendelson: Yes, and many of us on this side of the House asked the Government not to rush ahead in building up the force too quickly because we feared that if a large number of B Specials are taken in in the first few weeks and months of recruitment that will actively discourage people in the minority, and people who are in opposition to the present régime, from joining this force.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows better than I do, there are many people in Northern Ireland with excellent military records. Members of both main religions have seen service in the Navy or in the Army. There are hopes that, if this matter is carefully handled and not turned into a political stampede by merely creating the B Specials under a different name, and if all these suspicions are removed, it will be possible to recruit people with a good deal of military experience. I am envisaging a situation in which members of the minority as well as members of the majority become commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers in the new force.
If the impression is widespread—an impression which it seemed that the Premier of Northern Ireland was anxious to create—that it is all cut and dried, that there will be a take-over, that the force will be built up as quickly as possible to 6,000 and then there will be no room for anybody else, that result will not be achieved.

Captain Orr: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that it is desirable to achieve a force which is eventually balanced. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that if there is too much delay and the new force is not built up to an effective strength in a reasonable time the Ulster Special Constabulary continues in the meantime?

Mr. Mendelson: That point and the the argument about having a balanced force within 4,000 rather than within 6,000 is my final point. I do not accept the alarmist rumours which are being spread about the urgent need to create new defensive forces. We shall return to this question when we discuss where


the arms are to be stored, but all these rumours have been used over the years to create an atmosphere of political intimidation by one side against the other. I do not accept any of the arguments as real evidence.
We know that the real defence of Northern Ireland, where it matters today, is in the hands of the Regular British Army under the G.O.C. In previous debates hon. Members opposite have said, sometimes lightly, that the defence of the frontier of Northern Ireland might be involved. That is the business of the Regular British Army stationed there. That should be common ground if nothing else is common ground. The job of this auxiliary force should be very limited. The more that hon. Members try to create the impression that there are many things for the new force to attend to, the more that hon. Members spread alarmist impressions and opinion in Northern Ireland, the more they are going against the expressed wish of the G.O.C. and events as they now exist in Northern Ireland.
I come, finally, to the question whether there can be a balanced force in the lower numbers. I believe that this can be achieved. We want slow recruitment. We want no large influx of men who are committed to one side. It does not matter if recruitment goes slowly and if the target, even of 4,000, is not reached by 1st April and we have to go on to 1st May or 1st July. The Army is in control and is ensuring that there is fairness.
If the target is not achieved, I ask the Government not to aim at 6,000. Let the Government recruit people in small numbers and not make this force the preserve of the Special Constabulary. We must ensure that people from all quarters, minority as well as majority, are recruited in almost equal numbers. Then we can see where we are and make up our minds again. I ask the Government not to commit themselves to a large figure or to an influx from any one quarter.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I am very glad to be called immediately after that concluding remark of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), because his remark is relevant to my Amendment, No. 19, which deals with a slightly different

point to that of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). That is, whether or not, within a total ceiling of 6,000 men, as the White Paper proposes, we could not have an intermediate limit and see how we go on, as the hon. Member for Penistone put it—not to proceed at once to the 6,000 maximum, but to build up the force gradually and to ensure in this House that it is properly balanced in the process.
Then, if we are satisfied that the force is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) puts it, fully effective, we can decide whether it is necessary to increase it by the further 2,000. I absolutely agree that this is a condition of disbanding the U.S.C.—to make sure that the new regiment is fully effective, as it can only be if it is properly balanced.
Suppose that we had these 4,000 men and it became clear to the House that the overwhelming majority were recruited from the B Specials. No one would deem that an effective force. So we should be able to say to the Government, "We do not give you the right to increase the total to the 6,000 men"——

Mr. John Mendelson: It would be too late.

Mr. Lubbock: At least we should not have done so much damage. I agree that we would have spent all the money and the trouble on building up a force of 4,000 men—[Interruption.] I am supporting the hon. Member's Amendment. I am just putting forward mine as a compromise which the Government would find it much easier to accept.
Having built up the force of 4,000 men, we should then discover, if the hon. Member's suspicions are correct, that it was sectarian, and we should refuse permission to the affirmative Resolution which the Minister would have to introduce further to increase its size to 6,000—so at least we should have done only two-thirds of the damage which the Government are prepared to do, if the suspicions of some people in Northern Ireland are confirmed. That is why my proposal is a slight improvement on the hon. Member's. I am disappointed that it has not been selected for a Division, because I should have wanted to press it to one. In the absence of any right to do so, I will support the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
Another interesting point mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone is the activities of this unofficial committee of B Specials. I am grateful to them for the publicity which they have given to their activities in the Belfast Telegraph. If it had not been for this meeting of which he told the Committee, we might not have had proper evidence of the plots going on in the B Specials to make sure that they dominate this new force. The more meetings of this kind that they have in the Ulster Hall, the better I will be pleased. I am delighted that they are exposing their intentions while there is good time for us to take note of them and make sure, in the Bill, that their foul machinations are catered for while the Bill is still before the House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and another hon. Member concentrated heavily on the fact that the Hunt Committee made its recommendations in something of a hurry, and that, therefore, we should not take a great deal of notice of the figure of 4,000 and should not puzzle ourselves unduly over the 50 per cent. increase proposed in the White Paper, or ask for an explanation from the Government of the reason for the difference in these figures.
The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly satisfied that this working party of impartial civil servants has come to a better conclusion than Lord Hunt. He points out that, since Lord Hunt had only a short time in which to make his recommendations, he is not to be blamed for any error in his estimates.
In support of this, this paragraph in the introduction to the Hunt Report has been quoted:
Within the limited time available, it has not been possible to make as detailed an examination as we would have wished.
But hon. Members who used that quotation did not go on to refer to the final sentence of the paragraph:
We have, therefore, suggested procedures by which a number of matters which came to our notice and upon which we formed preliminary views may be resolved after further examination.
Hon. Members will agree that this implied that wherever Lord Hunt has made a recommendation on the basis of partial evidence, he has accompanied it

by recommending a further study by the Government. But in paragraph 171(a) Lord Hunt says:
We consider that its strength need not be as high as that of the U.S.C. and suggest that about 4,000 should be sufficient.
There is no suggestion that there should be further research to discover whether that figure is correct. There is no qualification of that statement. I do not think that any hon. Member can suggest that the words envisage a departure from that figure by as much as 50 per cent., as is envisaged in the White Paper.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The sentence reads:
We consider that its strength need not be as high as that of the U.S.C. and suggest that about 4,000 should be sufficient.
The hon. Member will agree that the wording is fairly weak and certainly does not seek to lay down a hard-and-fast number.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not agree with that interpretation. I do not see how the Government could go as wide of the number as 6,000 and still be within the recommendation. If that were Lord Hunt's intention, why did he not say, "We are not in a position to come to any definite conclusion on the matter, but we consider that a force of between 4,000 and 8,000 is probably right and we will leave it to the Government to determine where the ceiling should be within those limits"? If he had said that, we could have reconciled his findings with the figure of 6,000 in the White Paper.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Lord Hunt suggested a figure of 4,000. He did not recommend a figure of 4,000.

Mr. Lubbock: In the sense that it is argued that, throughout, Lord Hunt made sugestions, the hon. Member is correct. I will not read the sentence again, because hon. Members are familiar with it, but it seems to me that we are arguing about semantics.

Mr. Stratton Mills: At the end of the report, starting on page 44, there are 47 recommendations. Nowhere in those recommendations does Lord Hunt give a specific figure for the size of the force.

Mr. Lubbock: I know that. I have read the whole report, as has the hon. Member. Lord Hunt did not repeat the figure


of 4,000 given in paragraph 171. But if the hon. Member implies that Lord Hunt was not certain about the figure and left it vague, why did Lord Hunt not say so in paragraph 171? I do not believe that that is the case.
Lord Hunt made it clear that he had access to the same kind of military advice as was available to the Government. He spoke to the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland and he mentioned that his Committee had
been able to bring to bear on the matters falling within our terms of reference a varied background of experience gained
from military operations elsewhere in aid of the civil power.
I want to pin the Government down and to ask them exactly what was the difference between the evidence available to Lord Hunt, which appears to have been of a wide character, and the evidence available to the working party of civil servants and soldiers. Did they, for instance, obtain information from Cyprus that was not available to Lord Hunt? Since Lord Hunt mentions the background and experience gained through military operations elsewhere, what different advice did the G.O.C. give to Lord Hunt and the working party? Had he had further time for consideration and did he vary his figure in his evidence to the two bodies?
I am not prepared to accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South that, because a group of civil servants and eminent soldiers have had a little time to consider the matter, they have come to a conclusion so different from that of Lord Hunt. That is basically improbable and it is in the minds of some hon. Members that the difference does not arise from the recommendations of this impartial working party, but from some pressure brought to bear on the Government.

Mr. Richard: Mr. Richard indicated dissent.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman can deny it in his reply.
Nevertheless, there is that suspicion in people's minds. It is not in mine, but I am asking for clarification to deal with certain anxieties drawn to our attention by people we know in Northern Ireland and who are experienced in these problems.

It is not just I. The hon. Member for Penistone has heard the same kind of thing—that this is a device in order to be able to get the maximum number of B Specials into the new force and to see that it merely replaces the U.S.C. under another name.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South put a good contrary argument—that, if there is a large force, there will be more room in it for the Catholics than there would be if we restricted its size to 4,000. What that implies is that one is to have these 4,000 people transferred immediately from the B Specials and that only if we increase the ceiling above that number will there be some room for the Catholics, that they will be a fag end proportion of the extra numbers which the Government are demanding over and above the figure recommended in the Hunt Report.
If that were so, it would be a serious matter. Immediately, one would be taking into the new regiment 4,000 out of the 8,500 people serving in the B Specials and only thereafter would one find room for the Catholics. That is another reason for restricting the size of the force to 4,000 in the initial stages and only increasing it to 6,000 by affirmative Resolution later on. We should see exactly what the recruiting situation is to be before giving approval to the higher figure.
The Minister of Defence for Administration, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, did not reply to a point I had raised. I appreciate that there is not time on such occasions to answer every point raised in the debate, but this is an important matter, so I raise it again in the hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to it tonight.
The Hunt Report says:
Indeed everyone hopes that the reforms already in hand and those still being planned will, by removing the causes of discontent, make it less likely that in the future extremists will be able to provoke disorder and so bring about the conditions in which terrorism can be effective. Moreover a realistic assessment of the capacity of the I.R.A. to mount serious terrorist attacks would probably not rate it very high, particularly as the Government of the Irish Republic has stated publicly that it is opposed to the use of force on the border.
This is the point I asked the Minister to deal with in my Second Reading speech.
12 m.
On Second Reading, I said that this seemed to demonstrate to me, quite apart from the military calculations and the differences of opinion between Lord Hunt and the working party, that there were political factors which had to enter into any assessment of the size of the proposed force. It is an admission that we do not expect much of the civil rights changes in Northern Ireland if we say that the force must be larger than Lord Hunt suggested. We are saying that, in spite of what he said about the tension being decreased as a result of the causes of discontent being removed, we need a larger force.
That depresses me intensely, because it shows that the Government do not have that faith in the determination of the Northern Ireland Government to carry these reforms to their conclusion which I personally have. I am certain that Major Chichester-Clark is absolutely genuine in his determination to press forward co-operating with the Government here, with his programme of civil rights. It would be an admission by the Government that the reforms cannot be carried forward to a peaceful conclusion if they insisted on a force of the size proposed.

Mr. Richard: I intervene at this stage not to stifle debate, but merely because, in view of the last two or three speeches, it may be helpful if I indicate some of the things which are in the Government's mind, particularly about recruiting.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration to deal with that part of the Hunt Report which the hon. Member has just quoted. It is dealt with almost in the next sentence of the report. Immediately after the passage which the hon. Member has quoted there occurs this sentence:
Even so, it is necessary to consider the worst that might happen, so that proper precautions can be taken; and although the threat of terrorist attacks may not be great, the fear of them is very real, and public anxiety will not be allayed unless precautions are taken and are seen to be taken.
Anybody reading that and the end of the preceding paragraph would come to the conclusion that Lord Hunt was saying that there was a threat to internal

security in Northern Ireland, that he did not rate it highly, but that, nevertheless, it was something which must be taken seriously and guarded against and that provision therefore had to be made in respect of it.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Orpington that the figure of 4,000 as it appeared in the Hunt Report is anything like a firm figure. I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2 and 3, which say:
The importance and urgency of this task was impressed upon us in view of the situation following the disorders earlier in the month. After a visit by the Home Secretary of the Government of the United Kingdom on 7th September the hope was expressed that our report might be available in time for it to be discussed with him early in October…
Paragraph 3 said:
Both on account of the speed with which so wide-ranging an enquiry had to be completed and of the nature of the task itself, we decided that our enquiries should be informal and confidential, that we should confine ourselves"——
and the next words are important when assessing whether the figure is militarily correct—
mainly"—
and I accept that it is "mainly"—
to contacts and visits within the ambit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary and that we should seek written evidence and opinion outside the police forces privately, rather than invite submissions from all sources.
I am not in a position to tell the hon. Member the precise nature of the evidence which the G.O.C. gave, nor the way in which he gave it to the Hunt Committee. However, I can assure him that the figure of 6,000 is based upon a military operational requirement. It is arrived at by a process of mathematics, if I may use that phrase, somewhat similar to that used by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), although I do not accept his figures.
The operational requirement is based not on what happened in Cyprus, Aden or anywhere else but on a far simpler calculation. It is based on how many of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been engaged on certain duties within the past six or nine months. At the height of the troubles in July and


August this year, on the duty of guarding key points, which is the rôle the Hunt Committee, the White Paper and the Bill specifically give to the Ulster Defence Regiment, the number of men the R.U.C. employed was about 800 a night. The number is now about 500 a night. The regiment will be a part-time force, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figure of the maximum one can ask of people in such a regiment was four hours a week.
The training obligations proposed are quite onerous for a part-time force, and I think that they will be employed for more than that. In the broadest terms, assuming that each man is on duty for one night a week, and that between 500 and 800 men are needed at a time of tension to guard key points, one needs between 4,000 and 6,500 to 7,000 men. I accept that the figure must be somewhat imprecise. That is a military and not a political calculation. I shall come to what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said about politics in a moment.
Faced with 4,000 as the lowest figure and about 6,500 to 7,000 at the highest figure, that Government said, "We will set what we regard as a ceiling". We regard it not as a target but a ceiling, to be adjusted, as my hon. Friend said on Second Reading, in the light of circumstances as one has experience with the operation of this new force. If tension eases in Northern Ireland in the next year, and, therefore, the necessity to guard key points again lessens, it is very unlikely that one will need to recruit up to the figure of 6,000. But if it does not, and perhaps goes back to what it was in July and August, there will be a requirement for the guarding of those key points at approaching the rate I gave a moment ago.

Mr. Stan Newens: My arithmetic may be wrong, but my hon. Friend said that 800 men were required each night for seven nights a week, and according to my calculations, the number of troops required would be between 3,500 and 5,600. If that is correct, surely it undermines the case my hon. Friend is making. He is duty bound to explain how he arrives at the figures he gave.

Mr. Richard: First, I assume that each man will work only about one night a

week. I am bound to assume that there will be a certain wastage because somebody is away on a training camp, or somebody is ill, and so a certain amount of leeway must be given when arriving at a figure. I emphasis that the 6,000 is a ceiling and not a figure that the Government are recruiting up to. It is a figure that the Government has said is the maximum they can foresee.

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister said that if, next summer, it is found that tension is so high that we have a recurrence of the situation that had to be dealt with recently we need to go to the 6,000 figure, but that if, as everybody hopes, we can keep it down to a low pitch the 4,000 would be enough. If we suffer that sort of situation we would need a debate on Northern Ireland, as I think the hon. Gentleman would agree. So why not accept my suggestion that we have a debate on an affirmative Resolution, instead of in Supply time, for instance?

Mr. Richard: There are technical objections to doing it by way of affirmative Resolution.
May I, however, illustrate again to the hon. Member what the Government are proposing. It is that the size of the force should be controlled by the ordinary mechanism by which the size of this country's forces have been, and are, controlled, namely, by Estimates. Therefore, once a year, the Government have to ask the House of Commons for its approval as to the ceiling for the force for the forthcoming year.
In addition, we will be in a totally different position concerning this force than we were with the Ulster Special Constabulary, in two important respects. The first is that the new force is part of the Regular Army and, therefore, its recruiting pace and policy is foreseeable by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by other Ministers. Secondly, we are answerable in the House of Commons, as all Ministers must be, for the way in which the force is recruited, its size, logistics, pay, food, clothing and equipment, in exactly the same way as with any other part of the Regular Army. Therefore, the degree of democratic control, which seemed to be what my hon. Friends were worried about, over the new force will be infinitely greater than it was over the old force.

Mr. Orme: In view of what my hon. Friend says about democratic control, we cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the figure of 4,000 as proposed by the Hunt Report. If they wanted to do so at a later date, they could always come back to ask for a larger number. We are concerned about the figure of 4,000. The figures which my hon. Friend has just given about the deployment of the B Specials, for example, relate to a period in which they were engaged in activities which we hope never to see again in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend is not right about this. The activities in which the B Specials have been engaged and which I have been talking about were those of guarding key points and had nothing whatever to do with crowd or riot control. They are the numbers who have been guarding key and vulnerable points.
What Lord Hunt has said is that there will be a need for some type of force to carry out that sort of duty. The best military advice available to the Government is that a force possibly up to, but certainly in no circumstances exceeding, 6,000 would be appropriate.
I now turn to the second and, perhaps, more significant part of the debate. The hon. Member for Orpington and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone have referred—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: May I ask my hon. Friend what sort of equipment is intended?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The question is not in order.

Mr. Richard: That is dealt with on later Amendments. It is in the White Paper and it was dealt with at some length on Second Reading. Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me for not delving into that at the moment.
The real argument on the question of 4,000 or 6,000 is not, I apprehend, about numbers at all. The real argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said—he is quite right about this—is about recruiting. No one, I suspect—no one, at any rate, who broadly takes the view of my hon. Friends below the Gangway—would be in the least worried at a force which was

6,000 strong, 7,000, or, indeed, 10,000 strong, if half the force could be guaranteed to be Catholics. I suspect that Amendments would not be put down to reduce the number from 6,000 to 4,000 if my hon. Friends could be satisfied as to the recruiting procedure for Catholics coming into the force.
It would be helpful to return to the method of recruitment, that in which it is hoped and anticipated that recruitment will take place.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Rose: This is off the Amendment.

Mr. Richard: No, if my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) been present he would have known that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Orpington devoted the substance of their speeches to this.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. The actual terms of the Amendment refer to the number of people to be enrolled, not the methods of enrolling them. Later Amendments, which have been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means, deal with methods of enrolling and hon. Members have not yet voiced their opinions on those.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Member should leave points of order to the Chair. I heard the Minister make a remark and I was waiting to hear what he had to say before intervening.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order. I am not seeking in any way to challenge what you said, Mr. Gourlay, but I thought that we should be allowed to raise points of order to draw attention to this.

The Deputy Chairman: It is quite in order to raise a point of order on a question before the Committee, but in this case the Chair was seized of the position and was waiting for the Minister to step out of order before pulling him up. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was a little ahead of time.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I thought that I was perfectly proper in inquiring what sort of equipment was required for the force.

The Deputy Chairman: No, not on this Amendment.

Mr. Richard: One of the main arguments advanced by the mover of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Orpington, was for a reduction from 6,000 to 4,000 because, they said, there was a great fear that at 6,000 there would be a great influx of B Specials to the force. As they were entitled to argue that as the basis of the Amendment, I am entitled to say that their fears are groundless and there is no need for the Amendment. To establish that their fears are groundless, I must be allowed to say one or two things about the method of recruitment.
I reiterate the point made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration a most important and specific statement to which perhaps my hon. Friends have not paid sufficient attention. It was that if there came a choice between the size and the balance of the force the Government would lean towards a well balanced force rather than a quickly recruited force. That remains the policy of the Government and it is right that I should reiterate it.
A number of questions have been asked about the sort of forms to be filled in and the vetting to take place. It has been suggested that all that will happen will be a mass transfer of B Specials on vesting day as it were from one force straight to another. That cannot happen. Anyone wishing to enrol in the Ulster Defence Regiment will have to fill in a form which will be nothing like any of the forms talked about that have been talked about in this House or elsewhere. That has then to be vetted by the Army authorities. On Second Reading on 19th November, the Minister of Defence for Administration assured my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that the vetting for acceptance of applicants to join the Ulster Defence Regiment would be carried out entirely by the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, and in an objective manner. The suitability of applicants will be checked against that information.

Mr. Heffer: Utterly absurd.

Mr. Norwood: Surely this refers to an entirely different Amendment, which has been selected and is to be taken later. It has nothing to do with the numbers

involved. It has a good deal to do with the composition, but nothing to do with the point of substance.

The Deputy Chairman: I understand that, in speaking to the Amendment, several hon. Members made incidental references to the composition of the force. The Minister is, therefore, allowed a certain latitude when replying.

Mr. Norwood: Further to my point of order. The fact that, inadvertently, there was a previous breach of order, should not mean our tolerating the present one.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to interpret the rules of order. I have ruled that since incidental references were previously made to this subject, the Minister has a right to reply.

Mr. Richard: At least one of my hon. Friends did not refer to the subject incidentally, but made it the substance of his argument. The statement I am about to make will be of interest to him and the Committee.
In the vetting and acceptance of people to join the Regiment, the suitability of any person will be checked against all information available to the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and this will include the taking up of references. There is provision in the application form for references to be provided, and the sort of persons who must be referees are much the same as appear in passport application forms.
There will be interviews by skilled investigators of the Army's own vetting unit who are usually stationed at Woolwich. They will do the job either here or in Northern Ireland, but I imagine that it will mainly be the latter. They are normally employed positively on vetting inquiries, and they will be so employed in this way. The object of the provision is to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone spoke of meetings of an organisation of U.S.C. members. The Government are obviously concerned to try to provide the necessary regulations which, it is hoped—if the Bill is passed—will be


introduced for the purpose of giving effect to the new force. For example, it is hoped that eventually this will become part of the regulations of the Ulster Defence Regiment:
Officers, warrant officers, N.C.O.s and men not training in camp, etc., will not take part in or attend any political meetings or demonstrations in uniform.

Hon. Members: In uniform?

Mr. Richard: Naturally. When in civilian clothes, they will be like any other United Kingdom citizens. It would be an extraordinary proposition to say that a member of any force should be prevented from attending a political meeting if he is in civilian clothes. [Interruption.] I heard one of my hon. Friends say that he would not be allowed to attend a trade union meeting. I know of no regulation which would prevent a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment or any other part of the Regular Army from attending such a meeting.
It is hoped that another regulation will say:
Officers, warrant officers, N.C.O.s and men will not discuss political questions in speeches at military gatherings such as dinners, prize distributions, concerts, etc., whether attending them in uniform or not.
Yet another will say:
Meetings will not be held, or memorials drawn up, on any matter affecting discipline or the expenditure of monies received from public funds. No meetings, except those called together by or under the authority of the C.O. will be recognised.
It is obviously not right for me now to go through too many regulations of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Many of my hon. Friends would say "Disgraceful" or "Out of order" if I did, but the effect of the regulations, which are in draft, is to convert a part-time auxiliary police force into a force which is part of the Regular Army and, therefore, subject to military regulation, military discipline and military law.
I hope that with those remarks, and the report of the Advisory Committee on Recruitment, which my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration mentioned on Second Reading and about which he hopes to say something later, the fears which have been felt as to the insertion of 6,000 in the Bill instead of 4,000 will be allayed, and that my hon.

Friends will not think it necessary to divide the Committee.

Mr. Goodhart: I hope that the fact that the Under-Secretary of State referred at considerable length to the vetting procedure and the balance of the force will not prevent the Committee from dealing with these matters when we reach the Amendments which specifically refer to them.
I hope that I shall not bring a contentious English, Scottish or Welsh note into a Northern Ireland debate when I say that I am rather surprised to see that the hon. Members who have put their names to the Amendment put so much store on a single figure appearing in a report which was presented to the House of Commons. Those same hon. Members, night after night last year, objected to and argued against the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which were laid before the House. They certainly did not feel that a report should be accepted without amendment. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) argued most strongly that the House should reject the report of the Boundary Commission, which had spent five years on its preparation.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order. Trying as I am with increasing wonderment to follow how rules of order are administered in this Committee, am I to understand that the same indulgence is to be granted to back benchers as has been granted to the Front Bench?

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should not cast reflections on the Chair. The same rules apply to all members of the Committee.

Mr. Goodhart: Whereas the Boundary Commission had five years to prepare its report, the Hunt Committee had only a bare five weeks in which to present its report to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: This Measure was recommended to the House of Commons on the ground that it was carrying out in general the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, and we have been told that both Westminster and Stormont have accepted the Hunt Committee's Report.


We are still waiting for a proper explanation of why there has been a further grave departure from the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.

Mr. Goodhart: The second paragraph of the letter of introduction to the Hunt Report states:
Within the limited time available it has not been possible to make as detailed an examination as we would have wished. Indeed, in less serious circumstances we would have preferred to have several months at our disposal. We have, therefore, suggested procedures by which a number of matters which came to our notice and upon which we formed preliminary views may be resolved after further examination.
It appears that the Hunt Committee has answered the hon. Gentleman's point.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Hunt Committee had formed only preliminary views on the question of numbers, somewhere in its report one would expect to find a reference to the procedures by which these matters could be resolved. But I pointed out in my speech that the figure of 4,000 is given in one paragraph, but nowhere else in the report is there any reference to such procedures. Therefore, the views on this matter cannot have been of a preliminary nature.

Mr. Goodhbart: I would point out to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that paragraph 171(b), on page 42, says:
the nature, establishment and equipment and all other conditions relating to it, including the timing of its formation—
referring to the Ulster Defence Regiment—
should be decided by Her Majesty's Government at Westminster, in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland …".
It is wrong to argue that the Hunt Committee did not turn to this point.
There is a discrepancy between the Bill and the speech made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading which I should like to take up. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states, under the heading "Effects of the Bill on Public Service Manpower":
About 100 civilians will be employed for clerical, storekeeping and general duties, and about 50 members of the force will serve as permanent staff, as well as up to 50 attached personnel of the Regular Army.

Earlier, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", there appears a figure of £100,000, which would fit the figure of 50 Regular Army personnel seconded to the Ulster Defence Regiment. But in his Second Reading speech the Secretary of State referred to 200 personnel seconded to the regiment. A figure of 50 Regular Army personnel would be wholly consistent with the numbers of Regular Army personnel normally attached to a TAVR 11 unit. The figure now put forward by the Secretary of State is four times as high as that.
I hope that we shall be told what the extra personnel will do. Is it suggested that there should be two, three or four officers of field rank attached to every battalion, or in some instances will platoons be commanded by Regular Army personnel, or will the extra Regular Army personnel be drafted to headquarters with the force rather than sent to the battalions?

The Secretary of Slate for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. This was a slip of the tongue. We were intending to correct it. The right figure is the one given in the Preamble to the Bill. This occurred during the course of answering an interjection and I added together wrongly the civilians and the military. In fact, the figures are 50 and 100 as set out in the Memorandum.

Mr. Goodhart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving that correction, since it clears up that matter.
I am in full agreement with the Under-Secretary of State—I hope that he will not find this embarrassing—in his analysis of how the strength of this regiment should be arrived at.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman explain one point? How does he arrive at the figure of 6,000, if not 4,000? What is so magical about the figure of 6,000 which leads him into this curious alliance with the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Goodhart: I hope that I shall make myself reasonably plain on this point before sitting down.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr), in his admirable speech, reminded us that on the night of 19/20th November there


were more than 500 B Specials deployed, at the direction of the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, on guard duties at vulnerable points and on other duties wholly consistent with the rôle of the Ulster Defence Regiment when it is set up, and he pointed out that in normal circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that members of this regiment should spend more than one night a week doing these duties.
They have, after all, to fulfil their normal jobs in the course of a day. Therefore, even if we excluded training duties, which are onerous, we could reasonably expect, given the conditions that obtained on the night of 19/20th November, that 3,500 men would be on duty during any one week. That figure is made up of 500 men a night, seven nights a week.
But there is one special feature about the night of 19/20th November that we ought to bear in mind—that nothing of any importance happened. Unfortunately, such is the state of affairs in Northern Ireland at the moment that, whatever happens in Stormont and in debates in this House of Commons, we cannot count on nothing happening. To base a force on the assumption that we can get away with what happens on a night when there are no incidents is rash in the extreme. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the Government intend to resist the Amendment.

Mr. John Lee: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in all that he has been saying, except to point out that he attacks from a different point of view—no doubt his own point of view—the Government's figure. But, after a long debate, we are still no nearer an explanation for the figure of 6,000 to which they adhere.
I do not often find myself able to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr), but it was he who earlier said that it was a cockshy. He said that there was no more attempt to arrive at a reasonable estimate for this figure of 6,000 than there was for the Hunt Committee's figure of 4,000, except possibly that that committee had longer to consider before arriving at that figure.
I hope that we get more conciliatory replies from the Government than we have had so far tonight. If not, I warn

them that they will not go to bed tonight, unless the Whips decide to call it a day a little later, with the Bill far from being completed. Here we are, at twenty minutes to one, on the Second Amendment. Plenty of us are warming up, and if we get the mixture of truculence and lack of conciliatory attitude that we had from my hon. Friend on the last Amendment, he will not get any sleep tonight.
My hon. Friend's interim reply ranged so wide that I take it that is in order to range over methods of recruitment and how this will be carried out, and that we shall not be called to order, even though some of us were a little surprised that the matter was allowed to come into the discussion at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has done a good service in raising this matter, because by one means or another we have been enabled to enlarge the scope of the debate. We should enlarge the debate on this and every other Amendment throughout the night, and for however long the Bill is under discussion, until we get the Government Front Bench into a much more satisfactory frame of mind.
I support the Amendment. I should have supported it even if it had proposed a reduction to some derisory figure, because, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of this force at all. I take the view that at a time when we are cutting military expenditure in many ways it is absurd to take on an extra commitment of this kind. It is typical of Ministers of the Ministry of Defence that as a kind of throw-away line, in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), we are told that the British taxpayer is to pay for this force. As a taxpayer, apart from anything else, I am reluctant to pay for any further military expenditure, and I think that I am not alone in that view.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may be reluctant, but the House has already decided the principle, and he must, therefore, come to the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I favour the Amendment because it would reduce, albeit by a minute degree, the burden of expenditure which the Bill seeks to impose upon us. I think that it is in order to criticise


the Amendment, not merely because it is not as specific as it might be and that it substitutes one arbitrary figure for another, but because it does not go far enough.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is the Hunt Committee's figure.

Mr. Lee: That is true, but, with the best will in the world, the Hunt Committee itself was bound to choose an arbitrary figure. Any military situation which is sufficiently serious to warrant the use of supplementary forces of this kind is bound to produce in Northern Ireland a situation in which local forces have to be supplemented by the Army.
The fact that the Army is there at a time of relative calm shows that both these figures can be regarded as arbitrary. They are attempts to prognosticate a situation which cannot really be anticipated. It is not easy to calculate these figures when one is faced with what one might at worst describe as the semi-guerrilla situation in Northern Ireland. I thought that my hon. Friend was a little on the defensive because he had been attacked over his choice of a figure. It would have been more reasonable to have said that it was impossible to arrive at a precise figure, and that there was bound to be an element of guesswork in it.
12.45 a.m.
We have had some quite amusing attempts to regulate the number of hours that persons would be employed on duty. Everybody knows that in an emergency it will not be limited to one night a week, or something of that kind; people will find themselves called upon to be on duty for far longer than that. Since the force is to deal with just that kind of emergency situation it make the idea of trying to calculate on the basis of a calm period quite ridiculous. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham that to base our calculations on what happened on a night when there were no incidents does not help.
I would rather have had no force at all, but if we are to have to use military force I would much prefer that it should be used by Regular troops. Our experience of quasi-military forces in various parts of the world is not encouraging. If we think of places like Palestine, Cyprus or Kenya, we are not

encouraged to believe that even allowing for the fact that it is intended that this force should be restricted to duties which are not likely to bring it into contact with large numbers of the civil population it would be difficult to provide against that possibility occurring, and if it contains many of the former members of the B Specials it is right to take the view that it will start off on a poor basis.

Mr. Rose: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a serious Amendment? Does he accept that many of us agree that there is a need for a force in Northern Ireland because of the situation there, and that we have arrived at a figure of 4,000 because that was the Hunt Report's figure? Does he accept that this is a reasonable figure, and that there is no need for any meandering in this way, and that some of us would like to vote on this matter and to decide on that figure and would ask my right hon. Friend to give way to those of us who would like to see the original figure recommended in the Hunt Report replace the figure which has succeeded it?

Mr. Lee: I accept those points. First, I agree that this is a serious Amendment and, secondly, that it is referable to the Hunt Committee's recommendation. So far, so good; my hon. Friend and I are ad idem. But we are not ad idem as to our reasons for supporting the Amendment. I support it—and I apprehend that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) supports it—on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread and that a force of 4,000 is less objectionable than one of 6,000, bearing in mind that it is based on a particular group of people who are bound to be regarded with suspicion by a large part of the community.
If my hon. Friends who are thinking in terms of selling this idea had given more thought to what was said at the Civil Rights meeting in Ulster they would have been less sanguine about this force being acceptable. I respect them for bringing forward their Amendment. Their figure is marginally more reasonable and sensible, in purely military terms, than the Government figure. I support the Amendment, because if I cannot get rid of the figure entirely and cannot prevent this force being introduced I shall do everything possible to whittle it down.
I think that it is in order for me to say that if one ever finds oneself in a position where military force has to be used, it is far better to use Regular forces, whether for garrisoning, guarding strategic points, or for active operations, because Regular forces have a much better tradition of discipline engrained in them, they are less likely to run amok, they are much more responsive to control and less likely to panic.
This has been borne out time and again in all kinds of situations in the last 20 years overseas, so I think that it would be far better for the Government to rely on using armed forces—if a situation arises when military forces of any kind have to be used—than to rely on these quasi-military forces, these peculiar hybrid forces. Short of that situation, it is far better to have ordinary civil police. I do not think that there can be any transitional state in between—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the path of the Amendment, which we must adhere to quite strictly, namely, that it be 4,000 men.

Mr. Lee: I was just returning to the Amendment.
I support the Amendment. I wish that the Amendment had been cast in more drastic terms to cut the force by a very much larger amount so that it was a derisory figure. Since I cannot get that, I am prepared to support the Amendment on the basis that since 6,000 is obviously a concession of weakness on the part of the Government, and the figure of 4,000 is the one referred to in the Hunt recommendation, it would be far better to settle for the last of the two figures.

Mr. Heffer: I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he said that the figure of 6,000 was based upon a military operational requirement. If I remember rightly, those were his exact words.
My hon. Friend went on to say that at the height of the disturbances in August there were 800 of the B Specials on duty per night, and that at present there were 500. That, in my figures, makes it 5,600 during the period of intense disturbance and 3,500 at present.

Mr. Henry Clark: Mr. Henry Clark rose—

Mr. Heffer: No, I am not giving way. There have been far too many Members jumping up. I have sat here right through the whole of this debate and intervened only once, and, therefore, I am not giving way at the moment.
I want to develop the point about numbers. I understand that the whole argument of this Amendment is about the numbers of the force that is to be established. It seems to me rather important that we should get to this question of the numbers. Great play has been made here this evening by a number of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee that the Hunt Committee, in the early part of its report, stated that it did not have a great deal of time to go into all the details.
What actually happened was that the committee's first meeting was on 26th August, and it issued its report on 3rd October. The working party that we have been told about followed the actual publication of the committee's report, so the working party, therefore, must have met after 3rd October. The Bill was published on 12th November. Therefore, in view of the time factor, the argument that the working party examined the whole question in greater detail does not hold water.
There are 1½ million people in Northern Ireland. According to the Cameron Report, there are 8,285 B Specials. That is a high proportion of the total population. The Hunt Committee recommended that to replace the B Specials there should be a military force of about 4,000 and a reserve police force of 1,200. The total of 5,500 is still a considerable force and can be a very effective one.
The functions of the two forces were to change. The reserve police force was to take on the job of crowd control, policing spectators at football matches, and so on. The other force was to be concerned solely with the so-called defence problem. Defence against whom? Defence for what? Hon. Members from Northern Ireland tell us that there is a new type of Government there who are introducing various reforms. We have no confidence that the reforms will be implemented. If they are implemented, there is no reason for a defence force


against the people of Northern Ireland or against the people of Southern Ireland.
Paragraph 27 of the Hunt Report says:
Indeed, everyone hopes that the reforms already in hand and those still being planned will, by removing the causes of discontent, make it less likely that in the future extremists will be able to provoke disorder and so bring about the conditions in which terrorism can be effective.
An essential part of the Committee's argument was that the reforms should eliminate the causes of discontent. If there were total reforms, giving the minority the kind of democratic rights that we have, there would be no need for such a force—

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: Nonsense.

Mr. Heffer: I know the hon. Member's point of view. He is like a dinosaur. When I hear it, it frightens me to death. The thinking of some hon. Members has never advanced and it never will.
Against whom will this be a "defence"? Would any hon. Member suggest that it is needed, with the reforms, as a defence against Southern Ireland?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing not the need for the defence force, but whether it should be more than 4,000 men. There has been a long discussion of this Amendment. The Chair has been very fair to everyone, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to keep strictly to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: With due respect, Sir Robert, I am keeping to the Amendment. I am arguing that we do not need a force of more than 4,000, and that even that could be lower. The Amendment would not commit us to 4,000. I am asking, against whom should this "effective force" be effective? If there is no threat from Southern Ireland—and there is none—we do not need a force of 6,000. The figure of 4,000 did not just come out of the heads of the Hunt Committee, but was based on the facts of the situation. If my hon. Friend's figure of 500 a night is right, there would be 3.500 B Specials on duty, and that would allow for a wastage of 500. And that is in an abnormal situation, such as still exists in Northern Ireland.
I could not vote for a force of more than 4,000. I would, indeed, vote against the whole thing, because the logic of forces of this kind is that they lead to a backlash on the other side and vice versa. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment. If not, I appeal to my hon. Friend. I take his point about steady recruitment instead of a big buildup. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the figure will never reach anything like 6,000 and that it is much more likely to be about 4,000. If he gives that assurance, we shall not take the Amendment to a vote, but if he does not many of us will have to go into the Lobby against him.

Sir D. Glover: I shall be brief at this hour. I rise to make only two points, both made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and neither met in any of the other speeches. First, there was a declared intention that the B Specials will remain as an operational unit until another effective force has been created. I want a balanced force to be created in the Ulster Defence Regiment, but it seems to me that the opponents of the Measure have failed to appreciate the problem of time. Taking the population at the present level, a balanced force is about two-thirds of one section and one-third of the other section. The opponents of the Measure do not like the B Specials—

Mr. Rose: On a point of order. The next Amendment deals precisely with the question of a balanced force. This Amendment deals only with numbers.

The Temporary Chairman: I am waiting for the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to come to the point of the Amendment. I know that he will not willingly stray out of order, but will keep strictly to the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: You are right, Sir Robert. I will not stray out of order. I have said that I want a balanced force and, had I not been interrupted, I should have gone on to explain why I thought the size should be 6,000.
I believe that the G.O.C. Northern Ireland, who has gone into the matter in great detail, would probably accept as an interim measure that a force mostly of a selected segment from the B Specials,


recruited into the new body up to perhaps 4,000, would be acceptable, if recruiting were going satisfactorily, would be the viable force to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. The Committee has lost sight of the fact that even if it consisted mostly of B Specials, the new Defence Regiment would come under military discipline and would largely be controlled by Regular Army officers, so that the atmosphere would be quite different.
If, in these circumstances, we are to have a balanced force, we must then have a much slower recruitment of the minority group, who I admit will not join in a great flood. I believe that we shall get a balanced force by building the number up to 6,000.
Much comment has been made about the Hunt Committee recommending a figure of 4,000. The committee was a civilian body which said that basically that was the sort of figure it had in mind. The problem was then handed over to the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and his military advisers and a committee of civil servants who, I presume, approached the situation in a totally different way.
Probably the Commanding General asked how many vulnerable points he has to guard in the Six Counties and then calculated the force he would need. In a volunteer force one cannot expect a man to give more than one night a week for such duty. His calculation, therefore, and that of his Civil Service advisers, was 6,000 men to carry out the task laid upon him by the Westminster Parliament, not the Stormont Parliament. I am not speaking as an expert, but I have had military experience and have commanded a civilian volunteer force of part-timers, and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will understand me when I say that one cannot expect people to give up more than one night a week to carry out this sort of task.
This is purely a matter of logistics. There is surely no need for the Committee to get so heated as it has done tonight. The working party had no axe to grind and advised the G.O.C. on military lines what he needed to carry out the task laid upon him by the United Kingdom. He and they felt that he needed 6,000 and not 4,000.
I support the recommendation for a force of 6,000, the more so since I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South that we shall thereby get a minimum viable force under the command of Regular officers much more quickly. When the B Specials are disbanded, there will still be a margin of under-recruitment in the regiment and then there will be the opportunity to build up recruitment and finish up with a balanced force.
I believe the supporters of the Amendment are wrongly advised and guided on these grounds. If the Amendment were carried, we should not get a balanced force and this Committee, in its unwisdom, would be felt by the military command to have failed to provide a force capable of carrying out the task. I shall have no difficulty in opposing the Amendment.

1.15 a.m.

Miss Devlin: I support the Amendment. I make my position clear on this issue, as I have done before. I believe that the figure of 6,000 is too high. Nor do I see any justification for the force. It is not justified because the Government have failed to give good reasons for its creation.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Lady gets too involved in an argument that will be out of order, I remind her that she must adhere strictly to the question whether or not this force should have a strength of 4,000. She cannot go into the merits of the general case, whether there should, in fact, be a force.

Miss Devlin: With respect, Sir Robert, I was trying to illustrate why I think 6,000 too many. I am supporting an Amendment calling for 4,000, but I consider that too many as well. Since the Amendment calls for a maximum of 4,000, presumably it is in order to argue that there should be less than 4,000. My choice of number would be nil, because that would be in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. However, I accept that this force will exist whether I like it or not.
The Hunt Committee recommended a force of 4,000. The Government have decided to raise that figure to 6,000 I understand from the various statements


from the Front Bench that the figure of 6,000 is a ceiling, but basically I am not interested in whether that figure is a minimum or a ceiling for some time in the future, or whether it will be recruited between now and April or between now and a year's time. The number of 6,000 requires justification.
It is not unknown or uncommon for a Government to deviate from the recommendation of an advisory committee which they themselves have set up, but it is common sense and common practice for such deviations to be explained in some detail. Normally, one would expect to be told and one would be told in what respects a recommendation conflicted with Government policy and why the Government remained unconvinced by a recommendation of an advisory body.
It must be remembered that this deviation is by no means minor. The Hunt Committee recommended 4,000 and the Ministry of Defence have seen fit to increase that figure by 50 per cent. No other Ministry could so blandly brush aside requests for an explanation of a 50 per cent, increase. If there were to be an increase of 50 per cent, in bank lending, in War Loan, or anything else, we would hear a lot about it in the House of Commons, but so far we have had no explanation of the abandonment of the Hunt figure.
On Second Reading, the Minister of Defence for Administration repeated again and again that the figure of 6,000 was an optimum figure, but he made no attempt to explain how it was reached. Again, I ask who decided on the figure of 6,000. We are told that it was the working party. That consisted of civil servants and soldiers. Although the Hunt Committee rightly complained about the shortage of time in which to report and said that its contacts were mainly the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it went on to say:
Among our contacts outside the police force were the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, leaders of the Churches, the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General, representatives of the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland, chairmen and secretaries of the local authority associations, Chairmen of County Councils, Resident Magistrates, the Chairman and General Manager of the Londonderry Development Commission, representatives of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, proprietors and editors of newspapers, repre-

sentatives of the B.B.C. and Ulster Television, the Vice-Chancellors of both Universities and a number of other private citizens.
That seems to have been a wide range of men and they were not all soldiers or civil servants. I do not think that one could get a wider panel or a more comprehensive list of Northern Ireland society. It would appear that having met all those people Lord Hunt still saw fit to say 4,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "About."] The hon. Gentleman will agree that "about" does not include an increase or decrease of 50 per cent. What a very big "about"!

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend talks about the difference between the Hunt Committee and the Government working party. I think that the distinction to make is that it is obvious from what we have been told tonight that the Government working party consisted of members of the Northern Ireland Government as well as the British Government, and that is where the trouble lies.

Miss Devlin: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I shall develop that line of argument shortly.
We are dealing for the most part with unknown factors. There is a great deal of dispute about who was on the working party. If it made an investigation and produced evidence that it was better that there be 6,000 as opposed to 4,000 why have we been listening to arrogant remarks from the Government Front Bench? Why have we not received the results of the investigation and the working party's conclusions? Why can we not be told who its members contacted and where they obtained their information? There is only one answer, and that is that the Ministry of Defence is not quite sure.
Northern Ireland is an area with a violent and bloody history, an area in which people on a number of occasions, the last only a few months ago, have shot each other with no good reason. Yet in that kind of environment, an area where violence lies always just below the surface, and where any section of the community can almost at will drag it to the surface, we propose to create an armed para-military force 6,000 strong, and with it we have a police force of at least 3,000 and a police reserve of 1,500. There is no military justification for such action.
Over a number of years successive Governments have produced legislation for Ireland, and have been repeatedly warned on its passing of the mistakes they were making. They have repeatedly refused to listen. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are making yet one more mistake in passing this legislation for Ireland. If I accept, as I do, that they will do it anyway, I want to know why they are doing it in the face of the opposition. It comes not only from people like myself, who I am given to understand by hon. Members opposite may be treated as irrelevant, extreme, inexperienced and biased. Hon. Members are entitled to think what they like, but I do not stand alone, nor do my hon. Friends, in opposing the Measure.
There are representative bodies whose opinions should be consulted and whose opinions I do not believe have been consulted. There are people like the Civil Rights Association in the North of Ireland, which is much more representative of fair-minded people who want to see reforms than is the Ulster Unionist Party. The Civil Rights Association held a meeting only yesterday and opposed in total the passing of the Bill—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That will not do at all. The hon. Lady must confine her remarks to the question of the 4,000 men. The passing of the Bill is absolutely out of order on the Amendment. I must ask the hon. Lady to listen very carefully to what I am saying. I am not just standing here for talking's sake. I expect her to obey the Chair.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I am not sure whether you were in the Chair, Sir Robert, when we had the speech on the Amendment from the Government Front Bench in which my hon. Friend the Minister went very wide in discussing a whole series of reasons why he believed that the Bill set up a force that was different from the earlier B Special force. He listed a whole number of items. I have listened to the whole debate, and it seems to me that my hon. Friend, even if she strayed out of order for a moment, was far more in order than the Minister was. The debate having been widened so far, I hope that

my hon. Friend will be permitted to proceed with her speech.

The Temporary Chairman: The fact is that I am in the Chair now. I construe my duty to be to keep the Committee to the terms of the Amendment. What my predecessors in the Chair have done is no concern of mine. I know what the rules of order should be and that the hon. Lady—and, indeed, all right hon. and hon. Members—must keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. McGuire: Further to the point of order. Are you aware, Sir Robert, that the back benchers—and I speak as one— are getting a little bit tired of the Chair constantly calling to order hon. Members on the back benches who appear to stray just a wee bit but allowing the greatest tolerance to Ministers to introduce into their arguments matters which certainly are irrelevant when we are discussing particular Amendments? If the Chair— this is a problem whoever is in the Chair—allows the greatest latitude to a Minister but is quick to jump on a back bencher, my view as a back bencher is that this is to be deplored.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the Committee knows me well enough to know that I would, if necessary, jump on a Front Bencher, from either side, just as quickly as is necessary and as I would jump on a back bencher. I ask the Committee now to let the debate proceed. I am sure that I can rely on the good sense of the hon. Lady to keep strictly to the terms of the Amendment.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Sir Robert. I assure you that you can always rely on me to say what I was going to say anyway.
The Civil Rights Association met in Belfast yesterday and, by the implications of its much-publicised statement, made it perfectly clear that that body was totally opposed to the force containing 6,000 men. The People's Democracy—hon. Members opposite will say that it is a much less respectable body; they do not like it because it knows too much about democracy—a body representative of youth opinion in Northern Ireland, is totally opposed to the existence of the force of 6,000 men.
The Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a body not only within the confines of Northern Ireland, but a body


which is very strong in this country and has 100 members inside this Parliament, has also stated its total opposition to a force containing 6,000 men. Therefore, those widely representative bodies of people who demand civil rights and reform have called into question the passing of a Bill which would have 6,000 armed men in Ulster, and yet we are still given no justification why 6,000 armed men should be trained at the expense of the British taxpayer and sent into Northern Ireland.
I know that Ministers do not simply suck numbers out of the top of their thumbs. I am quite sure that the Minister got the number of 6,000 from somewhere, and I would like to point out where I think he got it from. Some hon. Members will be aware of the consternation caused in certain quarters in Northern Ireland on publication of the Hunt Report. In the days and weeks after its publication, the most right-wing members of the Unionist Party and the Orange Order stomped the country threatening to call forth fire and brimstone if the recommendations of the Hunt Report were implemented. Mr. William Craig, former Minister of Home Affairs, led the campaign.
1.30 a.m.
Those elements were very disturbed about the disbandment of the B Specials. They showed considerable consternation about the recommended number of 4,000 in the Hunt Report. It was obvious, and remains obvious, that more than 4,000 members of the Ulster Special Constabulary would wish to retain their arms. Once again, the Ulster Special Constabulary were being assured that the force would be of such strength as to accommodate all who wished to remain.
Hon. Members will be acquainted with the application form sent out to Specials before the debate on Second Reading, again indicating that 4,000 would not stand. The last sentence on the form reads:
I wish to join the Ulster Defence Regt/ Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. (Delete as necessary)".
By this the Specials were given to understand that there was enough room for all of them in one or other force. Six thousand and 1,500 makes 7,500. If we

remove the B Specials who do not fit the physical or educational requirements, such as they are—

Mr. McGuire: Very few.

Miss Devlin: Given that there are very few educational requirements, under the Bill—

Mr. Orme: They are extremely ignorant.

Miss Devlin: There would be very few. So one has 7,500 B Specials.
Why did the Government reject the Hunt recommendations? I still submit that this was done at the imperative instance of the Northern Ireland Government to make a body big enough to accommodate all the B Specials who wish to join. This Clause will go down in history as the "Save the Specials" Clause. It is significant to ask where we heard of 6,000 first. Where did we hear that the Hunt recommendation would not be implemented? Was it from members of the Government Front Bench? No.
Over a month ago, Mr. John Taylor, the well known right-winger of the Ulster Unionist Party—part and parcel of the Conservative Party—at a meeting in Rich Hill, County Armagh, said that the Hunt recommendations would not stand and that, apart from physical fitness and educational requirements, the B Specials could all get into the new force. This was long before the White Paper was published. It was backed up by people like Mr. William Craig and it was not contradicted by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland or any other person.
There is further evidence. Lieutenant-Colonel Miscimmon, Staff Officer of the Ulster Special Constabulary, said some weeks before the White Paper was published:
We can expect to be invited to join these forces whilst serving in the Ulster Special Constabulary, which is to remain in being and quite unaffected until the Defence Force comes into existence.
He went on:
In practice, I assume it will work out this way: up to a date and hour still to be decided, we will continue to be members of the Ulster Special Constabulary. We will then, those of us who apply and are active enough, will move across without any delay into the new defence force. The fact that in


the future for rôle and training purposes we will be two forces, not one, should not cause us to oppose change for the sake of it".
That does not come from me—from my inexperienced, biased evidence—but from the written word of a moderate, beloved, well-respected, totally honourable member of the U.S.C. He, not I, believes that the U.S.C. will more or less "move across" and "without any delay", into the new force.
This is why, once again the Ulster Government are holding the Government in London to ransom, saying, "We want 6,000 men or we will open our cage and let our backlash out". The basis of the Bill is, "6,000 men or else". It is time for Her Majesty's Government to take a long, hard look at the Ulster Unionist Party and to distinguish the dog from the tail. They will discover that it is one big backlash and that it is a mistake to deal with any part of it.
I support the Amendment because 4,000 is better than 6,000. However, 6,000 is only bowing down to the dictates of a Fascist party. For me, 4,000 is 4,000 too many.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) again enchanted us with a torrent of bitterness, but we are accustomed to that. [Interruption.] The Committee gave the hon. Lady a fair hearing. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will extend the same courtesy to me.
The hon. Lady told us how the figure of 6,000 had been arrived at. The Minister pointed out that it was agreed by the joint working party, but presumably the hon. Lady will not accept that. She apparently believes that the working party of senior civil servants from Westminster and Stormont also military personnel were corrupted by the Unionist Party. I gather that that has been her view of the Stormont Government all along and that now she believes the same of the senior military personnel who were on the joint working party. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady gives the impression that it has all been a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale. All the members of the working party were, she seems to allege, seduced by subtle Unionist politicians who transferred certain thoughts to their minds.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Stratton Mills: We must assume that that is what she is alleging. After all, she said that the figure was fixed. It can have been fixed only if she is alleging that all the civil servants and military personnel on the working party were joined in a giant conspiracy of fraud, and that is total nonsense.
The hon. Lady declared that no explanation had been given of why the Hunt Committee's figure of about 4,000 had been increased. Since she came into the Chamber half way through the Minister's speech, she could not have heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but she will be able to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister gave a full and adequate explanation, to which I shall refer later. She also argued that no force was required because there was no threat. I would refer her to paragraph 27 of the Hunt Report—[Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: It does not help the debate when hon. Members make asides which are not formally acceded to by the speaker.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The last sentence reads:
Even so, it is necessary to consider the worst that might happen, so that proper precautions can be taken; and although the threat of terrorist attacks may not be great, the fear of them is very real, and public anxiety will not be allayed unless precautions are taken and are seen to be taken.
I commend those words to the Committee.
Mr. Cathal Caulding who was to have shared the platform with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster at a conference in New York earlier this month of the National Association for Irish Justice, said this:
When the people of Ireland are prepared, united and conditioned to the principles of national freedom, we, in the forefront, are prepared to lead them in the final struggle and, even if that struggle demands the use of arms, the I.R.A. shall not be found wanting.
I will accept that there is a certain amount of bravado in that speech. I am not saying that we should take too seriously everything that is said by the I.R.A., but there is a potential threat, great or small, about which the people of Northern Ireland are rightly worried.
This debate on whether the figure should be 4,000 or 6,000 has been a better and more constructive debate than the debate on the name of the force. I have referred on several occasions to the views of Opposition Members of the Stormont Parliament, and, to put matters into perspective, I should say that they indicated that they were disturbed by the figure of 6,000.
The Hunt Committee's figure of 4,000 was a vague figure which was not intended to be taken as holy writ. The report suggests that about 4,000 should be sufficient. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred to the point made by Lord Hunt that his committee had had to work in a rush and that, therefore, there was to be a procedure for examining in detail the points which he was unable to go into, one of which is referred to in paragraph 171:
the nature, establishment and all other conditions relating to it, including the timing of its formation, should be decided by Her Majesty's Government at Westminster, in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland.
Surely that exactly envisages the working party that was set up. Lord Hunt's words referred particularly to the "establishment", which means the size of the force, and this shows conclusively that Lord Hunt had not gone into the point in detail, that he had not had time to examine it and was asking for some other procedure to examine the exact requirement as to the number of men needed in the force.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Lubbock: Since the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) raised the point, I have been considering it. He pointed out that paragraph 171(b) could be taken as qualifying what Lord Hunt had said in the previous paragraph about the figure of 4,000. But the word "establishment" has two meanings. It can be taken in the military sense of numbers of personnel on the strength, or it could mean, as I believe Lord Hunt indicated in the context, the establishment of a force in the sense of how it is to be established jointly by the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government at Westminster.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the early part of the report, where the word "establishment" is used in relation to the size of the Royal

Ulster Constabulary. It is undoubtedly proven that the point Lord Hunt was making was that this was something properly to be considered by a joint working party. He was suggesting that about 4,000 would be sufficient, but he was leaving it open for further consideration.
How carefuly did Lord Hunt examine the matter of the size of the force? I take it that it was done only on a rule-of-thumb basis. Furthermore, how carefully did the people who gave evidence, oral and written, to Lord Hunt have time to go into the size of the force that was needed? It may well be that some of those who were in a position to give evidence, because of their having to rush the matter and their being faced with other major problems at that particular time may well have wished to change their view from their earlier position. We should not take the Hunt Committee figure as altogether sacrosanct.

Mr. Rose: Although the hon. Gentleman seeks to demolish the figure of 4,000, not once has he or any of his hon. Friends yet given any evidence to show that the figure of 6,000, or the open-ended commitment in the Bill, is appropriate. Would he explain how he arrives at the figure of 6,000?

Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) went into that matter in detail. The Under-Secretary of State told us that a joint working party went into it.

Mr. Rose: Why?

Mr. Stratton Mills: I cannot speak for the joint working party. The Minister can speak for himself when he comes to reply. He gave a fair indication as to the way in which the working party approached the subject. If he wants to give further details, I am sure that would be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) consider asking the Minister to tell us what we do not know, namely, exactly what the Hunt Committee recommended? Did it state a figure approaching 6,000, a round figure of 6,000, or slightly more, or slightly less?

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). I endorse


what he said. In fact, I go further and say that I would welcome additional information from the Minister as to the joint working party. I have nothing to fear in the argument I am putting forward. This was an independent body which looked at the matter impartially at the highest level. If the Under-Secretary feels able to go further, I would welcome it.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) say that he had no objection to the force. I wish to refer to what was said by the leader of the Civil Rights Movement at Stormont, John Hume. He has said that he and a number of his colleagues want the minority to play their rôle in this force. Even after the rather heated debates in the following week he said that that was still his attitude.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has a different purpose. She does not believe that the force should exist. She has put that very clearly to the Committee. She feels that there is no threat and no need for the force. But I believe that she is going a bit further than this. She is deliberately trying to discourage Roman Catholic members of the minority from joining the force. She has also built up such an atmosphere of fear and suspicion about it that any Roman Catholic who joins will be called a "Castle Catholic" by her and her friends.
This is reinforced by the fact that when John Hume called on members of the Catholic faith to join the force, she called him a recruiting sergeant for the Army. This is—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the terms of the Amendment. I want to be extremely fair. I do not want either side to think that I am showing any favour to the other. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the terms of the Amendment strictly.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am bringing my remarks to a close. I hope that members of the Labour Party who are interested in these matters and, from a different point of view, share concern about them, will realise that there are those who are deliberately trying to torpedo this force from the beginning. It

would be utterly disastrous if this were to happen. I want the blinkers to be taken off so that all can see what is happening.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. John Mendelson: I should like—

The Temporary Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mendelson: I want to ask a question.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is not entitled to the Floor. Mr. Fitt.

Mr. Fitt: It will take me just a few minutes to support the Amendment, because I think that all hon. Members who have spoken have gone into it in great detail.
I have sat here into the early hours of the morning trying to gauge the atmosphere in which the debate is taking place. I can readily see why this country has made such mistakes in the past in its relations with Ireland and her affairs. It is obvious to me that the Government have made up their mind that they are not prepared to listen to reason. They have done a deal with the Northern Ireland Government over the 6,000, so the atmosphere in the Committee is completely divorced from the atmosphere in Northern Ireland. There could be real trouble in Northern Ireland over the formation and the constitution of this regiment.
We have been asked not to make inflammatory speeches. We have been asked not to say anything which may in any way exacerbate the tense situation in Northern Ireland. I remind the Government that there is a very tense situation in Northern Ireland, and that it has not been brought about—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot help whether there is a tense situation in Northern Ireland. The question is whether or not this regiment should consist of 4,000 men.

Mr. Fitt: I am saying that this situation has not been brought about by anything which has been said. It was


brought about when we heard that there were to be 6,000 ex-B Specials taken into the force without any opinion having been expressed. It is the question of the 6,000 which has brought about the tense situation, and that is what we are discussing.
There can be no doubt that there is serious opposition to the figure of 6,000. The Government have not succeeded in justifying this maximum figure. Why should there be a maximum figure? Why should they say 6,000? If there is to be serious political unrest next year or the year after, it may take 7,000 or even 8,000. Therefore, no Government in their senses will limit themselves to a maximum figure. If more personnel are needed to cope with a given situation, the British Army should be capable of handling it.
About two hours ago I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) trying to justify the minimum figure of 4,000. I think that he came out with the outlandish computation that there were 250 vital installations in Northern Ireland.

Captain Orr: That was not my computation. I merely said that the G.O.C. Northern Ireland had 250 points to guard on that night in November.

Mr. Fitt: I have lived for years in that little part of the United Kingdom, and I find it hard to visualise 250 vital installations. On the night in question 20 or 30 members of the Ulster Special Constabulary were guarding Paisley's home and his church. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman regard those as vital installations, or does he regard Paisleyas a vital installation? It all

depends on which side one is on in this argument.

This is a ridiculous figure. I object even to the figure of 4,000. I object to it on the ground of cost. I do not believe that the taxpayers of this country should be forced to bear this burden to keep a force of between 4,000 and 6,000 men in operation in Northern Ireland when it is unnecessary.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) quoted the Hunt Report and said that we do not really think that there will be any trouble, but the people think that there will be trouble and that, therefore, we must have these 6,000 men there. How silly can one get? If the military commanders, or the security commanders, do not believe that there will be any trouble, one does not create a force merely to please people who think that there might be trouble. There must be a real reason for keeping such a force in existence.

A great deal has been said tonight, but the Government remain completely unconvinced. I charge the Government with having done a deal with the Northern Ireland Government. They are not prepared to listen to reason. My hon. Friends have vehemently supported the arguments which have been put forward to show that a force of 6,000 men is unnecessary. If there is unrest about this maximum figure being put into operation, the blame for it will have to be borne by the guilty men on the Government Front Bench.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 25, Noes 114.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[1.59 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Latham, Arthur
Norwood, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Lee, John (Reading)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bidwell, Sydney
Lubbock, Eric
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)


Brooks, Edwin
MacDermot, Niall
Ryan, John


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
McGuire, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Paul B. Rose and


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Stanley Orme.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Newens, Stan





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Boston, Terence
Carmichael, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Chichestsr-Clark, R.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Clark, Henry


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Coleman, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Blackburn, F.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony




Currie, G. B. H.
Huckfield, Leslie
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pounder, Rafton


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rowlands, E.


Ennals, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
McElhone, Frank
Speed, Keith


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Tinn, James


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E,
Urwin, T. W.


Golding, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Varley, Eric G.


Goodhart, Philip
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wallace, George


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitaker, Ben


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and


Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Palmer, Arthur

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
Provided that the composition of the force reflects a proper balance of the community in Northern Ireland.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discussed Amendment No, 5, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
Provided that any person wishing to enlist shall not be debarred either on grounds of religious or political opinions.
New Clause 4—Recruitment:

(1) The Secretary of State for Defence shall establish a recruitment panel to apply the enrolment criteria set out in this Act, and any orders made out thereunder, and to ensure that members of the force are not recruited in a discriminatory manner.
(2) The Secretary of State for Defence shall stipulate by order minimum educational standards in entrants to the force and shall impose standards of physical and mental fitness.
(3) All applicants for positions in the force shall sign a statutory declaration that they are not and have not been members of the Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, or any associated or similar clandestine organisation.
New Clause 15—Recruitment Panel:
The Secretary of State for Defence shall establish a recruitment panel to apply the enrollment criteria set out in this Act, and any orders made out thereunder, and to ensure that members of the force are not recruited in a discriminatory manner.

New Clause 16—Entrance qualifications:
The Secretary of State for Defence shall stipulate by order minimum educational standards for entrants to the force and shall impose standards of physical and mental fitness.
and New Clause 17—Statutory declaration:
All applicants for positions in the force shall sign a statutory declaration that they are not and have not been members of the Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, or any associated or similar clandestine organisation.

Mr. Rose: I have sat here for seven hours and have not made a speech, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for allowing me to move what I consider to be a particularly important Amendment dealing with the composition of the new force.
The requirement that the composition of the force shall reflect a proper balance of the community in Northern Ireland is, to my mind, quite fundamental to its acceptance by that section of the community which hitherto has been kept out of any influence or authority.
We are dealing here with a situation where there has been virtually a one-party State since the inception of Northern Ireland, and in which even now the majority party, together with the even more right-wing section, have 39 out


of 52 seats in Stormont. The problem for my right hon. Friend is not to placate the Lardner Burkes of Northern Ireland, but rather to calm the very justified fears of the minority who have been oppressed for 50 years. That is not to say that one has not the equally important task of ensuring that the majority community will not be coerced into a union they do not want to join.
Every party in the Dail—and I was present at the debate there recently—which has a long-term aim of a united Ireland was united on the assumption that this could never be done by force or coercion, so there is only an argument for a small, non-sectarian force which would deal with those extremist sections of the community who would shed blood rather than let the fractured bone of Northern Ireland heal. It must be a non-sectarian force; it must not be a reconstitution of the B Specials under another name, a fear which has been expressed many times in this debate. It is vital, for example, that the battalion commanders of the new regiment are not the county members of the notorious B Specials.
Hon. Members opposite will say—rightly so—that many members of the B Specials are brave and honourable men who did their duty as they saw it. However, they are a relic of the past, just as the Black and Tans are a relic of the past, just as the Peep o' Day Boys are a relic of the past, and just as the Invincibles and the Molly Maguires are relics of the past. They have no relevance to an enlightened seventh decade of the 20th century.
During the debate on the Police Bill I referred to a statement by the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill, who said:
Information which has come to hand … makes it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens is threatened by a very dangerous conspiracy, prepared at any time to use murder as a weapoin.
He referred to
a sordid conspiracy of criminals ready to take up arms against unprotected fellow citizens.
It is because there are such people—Captain O'Neill was referring to the Ulster Volunteer Force—that I differ from the hon. Lady the Member for

Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and believe that there is an argument in favour of a force such as this in Northern Ireland.
The Minister has shrugged off all the warnings we have given him tonight, just as successive Ministers shrugged off warnings during the past five years when some of my hon. Friend's consistently warned them of the situation which was developing in Northern Ireland. If there is any blame to be attached for this, apart from that attaching to the Government of Northern Ireland, it should be laid at the door of the Government Front Bench who, in their obtuseness and arrogance, year after year refused to listen to and heed what we said.
I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Minister. If he compares what we wrote on 27th April, 1967, and then reads the Cameron Report, he will find that what we wrote on 27th April, 1967, to the then Home Secretary was virtually a condensed version of the Cameron report which had to be produced some years later. Let nobody laugh about the warnings given by hon. Members on this side and by one or two members of the Liberal Party about a situation which developed just as we forecast it would. We have a right to a hearing tonight.
The Government might also have heeded some words which were written long before that. We know a great deal about Irish history, which goes back a long time. One hundred and fifty years ago something was written which is just as appropriate tonight as it was then. Writing in 1807, Sidney Smith said:
I admit that to a certain degree the Government will lose the affection of the Orangemen … but you must perceive that it is better to have four friends and one enemy than four enemies and one friend; and the more violent the hatred of the Orangemen the more certain the reconciliation of the Catholics. The disaffection of the Orangemen will be the Irish rainbow: when I see it I shall know the storm is over.
When I see the disaffection of Mr. Craig and Mr. Paisley, I shall know that the storm is over. I greatly fear that what is intended here is to placate Mr. Paisley and Mr. Craig rather than to bring them out into the open and deal with them in the way in which they should be dealt with.
I want clearly to distinguish between what I call Orangemen and ordinary


decent Protestant members the community, many of whom have given the greatest leadership to movements for freedom in Ireland. I was delighted to receive a letter the other day congratulating me on what the writer calls
your fight for the intimidated decent Protestant Labour supporters and Socialists in Ireland.
People like Mr. Norman Porter, the former Independent Member of Parliament for Clifton, have openly said that priority in jobs should go to Orangemen. Mr. Kilfedder, who sat in this House of Commons years ago and who is now a parliamentary candidate for the Unionist Party and, therefore, for the Conservative Party, was responsible for a leaflet which said:
Do you want Roman Catholics in your street?
2.15 a.m.
I want to know, "Do you want Roman Catholics in your Ulster Defence Regiment?". I do; and in this, I differ from one or two of my hon. Friends. For years we have been alerting the Government to the imbalance in community relations in Northern Ireland. Some of us have published documents like "The Plain Truth" and "Fermanagh Facts", about the situation in Newry, Dungannon and Cookstown. What was worse was that blatant official discrimination, not only against Roman Catholics but against Labour Party members and trade unionists.
We must make it clear to Mr. Craig and his ilk that we do not accept what he says, that it would be wrong to think that anyone could legislate over the heads of that democratically elected Parliament of Northern Ireland. This is constitutionally, practically and morally wrong. Just as we sent troops over the heads of that Government, I believe that we have the right to pass this legislation, with severe Amendments. The troops were acceptable in the situation in Northern Ireland, except to a small group of people. Who were they? Not those who were waving the tricolour, but the fanatics of Shankill Road, who pumped bullets into British soldiers while waving Union Jacks. Those soldiers were acceptable because they were imported from Britain and were an integrated force. If 40 per cent, of the Irish

Fusiliers can be Roman Catholics, why not 40 per cent, of the new force?
The minority population, who were the majority in Derry, cheered when British soldiers were rightly sent by this Government to that city. As I have said before, I believe that that area would have been burned to the ground if British soldiers had not intervened then. Therefore, an even more fundamental point than numbers or names is that this force must not be a repetition of the B Specials. This is why I am asking the Committee to support the Amendment—to say that we will not have another Ulster Volunteer Force or the B Specials in a different guise. We all know their origins in the 'twenties, and the number of Catholics who died at the hands of the Ulster Volunteer Force during those years. We know how the Catholics were forced off the dockside in Belfast by revolvers, and we know the source from which those guns came.
This is why this force is feared and detested in Northern Ireland. We all know what happened at Burntollet last year, that many members of the B Specials participated in what might have been a pogrom. These men must not be allowed in what must be a balanced force. If my right hon. Friend can give an assurance that those who transgressed on those occasions will not be allowed in this new force, it will relieve me of the obligation of pressing new Clause 1.
One reason that I am concerned is that a B Special officer was recently quoted as saying:
Seventy-five per cent, of my men would never hand in their arms while the Constitution is in danger, and would fight the British Army if they had to.
Is this why, tonight, we face the prospect of this new force of 6,000 men? If it is, I must demand that there be a safeguard, so that never again can there be a Curragh incident or threats of U.D.I, of the type that we have had from Mr. Craig.
What concerns me tonight—this is the underlying malaise of our long debate—is a report in The Guardian, following the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which read:
Mr. Roy Hattersley, the Minister of Defence for Administration, last night defended the Government's decision to form the new Ulster Defence Regiment in place of the notorious B Specials on the ground that any


other course might have driven the force's predominantly Protestant members"—
one might have said, "entirely Protestant members"—
underground with their weapons. 'I am walking a tightrope', he said, 'but the Government is keeping well in balance in the centre.
The question was asked earlier: where was this agreement made? It seems to me that it was made on a tightrope and that the Government have yielded quite unnecessarily to the Stormont Government. They have yielded in so many ways that I wonder whether they are to yield on the composition of the force. But my hon. Friend said something more hopeful, from which I draw comfort. He said that
Great care would be taken to see that recruits were drawn from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. He made no apologies to Miss Bernadette Devlin's protests about the new force; he still wanted her to see that some of her supporters joined the regiment.
I welcome at least that section of the Minister's speech because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, if we have to have the force, I want to see large numbers from the minority community, large numbers of the underprivileged and of those who have been kept unemployed in Derry and Newry, large numbers who have never been able to participate in a force of this kind or in public life, joining this force. I believe in a smaller force, but I appeal to members of the minority community to join and to try to produce a decent, sane, tolerant and generous society in which the dissensions of the past can be forgotten.
I am not arrogant enough to suggest to the people of Northern Ireland that we in this House should decide their constitutional future for them. I have always made my position clear: it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want to remain part of the United Kingdom or to become part of the Republic of Ireland. But as long as this Parliament has sovereignty over part of the geographical entity which is known as Ireland, we must be particularly careful and generous in our treatment of the less privileged and we must create a balanced community.
If, therefore, we are to have a military force, the correct balance in that force

is an essential prerequisite. Even if we have the reforms for which many of us have fought for years—and let us not forget that the struggle began much longer than five years ago—it is not enough to achieve civil rights in other fields. There must also be equality in this force—and not merely equality on the ground, but equality through all the ranks and particularly in the senior ranks of the force.
If that is my right hon. Friend's intention, then I hope that the minority community will respond. If my hon. Friend can give an assurance that this is no shabby deal to placate the orange at the expense of the green, but rather a force which will unite orange and green and which will help to bring to Northern Ireland the liberties which we possess on this side of the Irish Sea but which they have not possessed for 50 years in Northern Ireland, I shall feel happier. If some of my hon. Friends have been disturbed tonight, it is because we feel that a deal has been done with people who, on their record, cannot be trusted to carry out their side of the bargain. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster is more suspicious than I am, I understand that. If she feels, as she said on television, that she could not act as a recruiting sergeant and could not advise anyone to join the force, I understand that, because of all that has happened in the past weeks and because of what she was able to expose about the recruiting for the B Specials. I would rather, in a positive spirit, say, "This has happened, but it is now past".
If my hon. Friend the Minister could assure us that there will only be a force if that force is an integrated body, balancing the communities reasonably, then those of us concerned with good community relations should join with people like Mr. Hume and appeal for support from all sections of the community in forming such a force. I believe that would be the first step to the elimination of the need for the force.
As soon as the injustices have gone, as soon as a balanced force exists, I believe that it will be seen not to be needed, except perhaps to deal with Orange extremists. I believe that it would wither away. There is no threat from south of the border; the only threat is a backlash from the North. The


creation of a balanced community in Northern Ireland will eventually eliminate the need for a force such as this.
I see no reason why the Government cannot make one gesture now towards members of their own party who have been appealing to them for some gesture. I see no reason why the Government should not concede that this Amendment is within the ambit of the Bill and accept it in the spirit in which it is moved.

Captain Orr: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and his hon. Friends. I recognise the difference of attitude between him and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), although it is perhaps odd to see her name to an Amendment which calls for the force to reflect a proper balance of the communities. I believe that by that she really means O-O.

Miss Devlin: indicated assent.

Captain Orr: I understand the object which the hon. Member for Blackley has in mind. It is one all of us have—that the regiment shall reflect the general membership of the community. We wish to see those who, in the past, for various reasons, have boycotted and refused to join the U.S.C., but who are willing to undertake a task for the security of the country, joining the new regiment. In so far as the spirit of the Amendment is concerned, therefore, my hon. Friends and I would be very willing to accept it. I do not know what technical arguments may be involved; that is a matter for the Minister.
There is only one proviso to be borne in mind. It concerns the timing of the coming into operation of the new regiment. If the hon. Lady had her way and succeeded in persuading the whole of the Roman Catholic community to boycott the new regiment one could not write into the Bill a provision which would prevent the new regiment from coming into being at all. One could not say that one section of the community should have an absolute veto upon the defence and security of the community.
But, subject to that very important consideration, my hon. Friends and I

would accept the spirit of what I believe to be the hon. Gentleman's intention.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has asked me to apologise for his absence. He is unwell, but he continues his great interest in the Bill and wants it to be known that he would have been glad to be here and to take part in the debate. Amendment No. 3 contains the principles which those of us who suggested Amendment No. 5 had in mind.
One of the things in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, and why he took some initiative in suggesting Amendment No. 5, was political opinion. On a number of occasions, he has said to me and to others interested in this legislation that what he had in mind—he made a somewhat similar point on Second Reading—was that if someone in Northern Ireland believed as his profound conviction that there should ultimately be one united Ireland, and was on record as holding that opinion, he should not be excluded because of that political belief from volunteering for the force if he wished to do so. That is one of the points my right hon. Friend wished me to put forward.
Amendment No. 3 is particularly important. In Northern Ireland, during the last 40 years, there have been many instances when there has not been a balanced composition in the public service. I will give two examples which were brought to my notice when I was in Northern Ireland with a group of colleagues shortly after the incidents which led to the later developments. It was brought to my notice that in the placing section of the employment exchange in Belfast, the section responsible for allocating jobs to people and suggesting to them where they should go to find a job, until about five months ago there had not been one person from the religious minority in Northern Ireland on the staff for 23 years.
The second example concerns my interview with Commander Anderson, one of the Unionist Members at Stormont, when we visited Derry. He admitted that there was not a single member of the religious minority on the professional staff of the Derry City Council, and added that it had only one application from that


minority in 9½ years for the post of deputy head of the educational services, and that applicant had not been appointed.
Therefore, this is a practical Amendment, not put down for propagandist purposes, and one that I very much hope that the Government will accept. They have moved in the direction of the Amendment in all their public pronouncements. We have now heard from an hon. and gallant Member opposite, and I believe that he said he was speaking for some of his colleagues as well, that it would be acceptable to him. It will be up to the Government and not the Opposition to implement the Amendment if they accept it.
But I must take issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on one point, and this is one of the reasons why I wished to interrupt one of his hon. Friends at the end of the last debate. It is illegitimate, when the House of Commons, either in Committee or as a House, is passing legislation and asking the Government to accept an important Amendment, to refer to an individual hon. Member and make acceptance of the Amendment dependent on what that hon. Member might or might not say. That is a wholly unreasonable way to proceed, and it is wholly propagandist. Obviously, it is not serious.
There can be no serious argument that if one hon. Member succeeds in her propaganda one cannot ask the Government to accept the Amendment and have a balanced force. We are talking about the way in which the G.O.C. and Secretary of State for Defence, under the scrutiny of this House, will build up the force. That is not dependent on expressions of view by one hon. Member on either side.
The Government should say in accepting the Amendment, first, that they accept its principles, and, secondly, that they are convinced that it is workable, because if they are not all their previous declarations and the policy behind their purpose in asking the House and Committee to accept the Bill would fall to the ground. The Government must be convinced that it is possible to have a properly balanced force. Otherwise, on their own declaration, they could not embark on this enterprise. Thirdly, they should say that they will not hurry

with the building up of the force, that they will adopt a policy of phasing in, so that the principle of its being a balanced force takes precedence over any intended big build-up.
Here, I have only one comment to add to what has been said in previous debates, but it is equally relevant here, as to the expectations of the members of the B Specials that there will be a wholesale transfer into the new force. The political difficulties facing the Government at Stormont on this point are very great. I understand them and do not underestimate them. In view of the things they have done—the application forms they have wrongly sent out, the speeches they have made—those difficulties are very great. But it is no part of the business of the Government at Westminster, because of the difficulties facing Major Chichester-Clark and his colleagues, to abandon the major principles on what the legislation should be based. There should be—and I am not referring to nebulous agreements—some plain speaking on behalf of the Government here and the majority view in this House to the Government at Stormont. I do not joint the expressions of opinion that we have on our Front Bench a group who might be guilty men if, as a result of the wrong policy, this does not work as the Government would wish it to work. I am much more concerned not with future guilt, but with present action that will lead to the desired result.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister, on behalf of the Government, to say to the Committee that there is no need to be so secretive about that. One way of dispelling some of the allegations which have been made would be for my hon. Friend to take the Committee to some extent into his confidence concerning the discussions with the Government at Stormont, to say clearly that the Government stand by the principle involved in the Amendment and that they will be speaking frankly, as I am sure they have had to do on a number of occasions in the recent past, to the Government at Stormont to ensure that the principle involved in the Amendment becomes the overriding consideration in building up the force.

Mr. Pounder: One of the notable features of this evening's discussions has


been that as the hour has drawn later, so emotion has tended to lessen and logic and reasoned argument have increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not mean that offensively. I think that the debate on this Amendment has been, without doubt, the most cogently argued case yet presented in this Committee stage. That is a personal view.
Certainly, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) I do not cavil at the spirit of Amendment No. 3 or Amendment No. 5. What I am slightly concerned about is whether it is practical to write into legislation either of those Amendments, because repeatedly the Government Front Bench spokesmen have said categorically what their intentions are: that they are determined—and I think that all my colleagues from Northern Ireland would go along with the Government's desire—to secure a balanced force. I would have thought that the Army screening procedure which has been referred to several times from the Treasury Bench more than adequately covers the sort of situation which is envisaged by Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
I was, however, somewhat interested by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) when he talked about a proper balance of 45 per cent.

Mr. Rose: I referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who had said that in the Irish Fusiliers there were 45 per cent. I threw out 40 per cent, as a possible figure with regard to a balance.

Mr. Pounder: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I had assumed that one would have talked roughly of a two-thirds-one-third breakdown.
I would find it somewhat disturbing if the following eventuality were to develop. Earlier this evening, the Government spokesman told us that they were prepared, to secure a balance, to have a slower rate of recruitment than might otherwise happen to meet, say, a deadline of 1st April. I do not wish to make any more selective quotations from history and thereby follow some of the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, because charge and countercharge is a wholly sterile operation, but

the history of the last half century, particularly the 1920s, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary was being set up, shows that there was a disinclination by the minority to take up the places which had been reserve for them in that force, namely, the one-third.
One was then confronted with a situation that either one had a weaker force than was required for Northern Ireland or, alternatively, one had to make up the shortfall by any applicants who were prepared to come forward. Let us hope that a similar situation will not arise with the proposed Ulster Defence Regiment. I would be interested to know what would be the Treasury's thinking in the hypothetical situation which I have mentioned.
As I have said, I sincerely hope that circumstances will not require anyone to give thought to such a procedure, but when we are talking, as we have been doing all evening, about the new regiment, one has to think of possible eventualities, and this is certainly one in which we would be deluding ourselves if we ignored it completely. If there is a serious shortfall in the balance which both sides of the Committee earnestly seek, it augurs very ill indeed for the improvement in relations which we all seek.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Orme: This point is crucial to the argument. This force will be an arm of the British Army. We have been told that the British Army today consists of about 40 per cent. Roman Catholics. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Anyway there is a larger proportion than there is in the population as a whole. No one worries about this, because religion is not taken into account. It would be absolutely untenable for a force to be created in Northern Ireland which, once again, reflected the B Specials who had been disbanded. If the hon. Member is posing the same question as was posed by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), he should know that we cannot start on the basis of the B Specials.

Mr. Pounder: I am not necessarily following any argument which may have been advanced earlier. I accept, of course, that the new regiment will be an arm of the British Army, but it will have


a slight difference because it will be a predominantly home force. Unlike the T.A., it will not have a N.A.T.O. commitment. There are differences—administrative differences. It is important that we have not to envisage 100 per cent., 99 per cent., or 98 per cent, coming from one religious denomination, but to try in a balanced force to secure proportions similar to those in the population as a whole. That and no more is the argument I seek to advance.
I thought the hon. Member for Blackley was falling into an error when he sought to confuse internal and external problems of Northern Ireland. This has been a recurring feature of our discussion tonight. It is all very well to talk about what will happen when from time to time Northern Ireland has certain problems, but this regiment will be dealing with external possibilities. It would be a great mistake to argue that when internal problems have been resolved this force will become unnecessary. It will be geared to external possibilities.

Mr. Rose: I tried to say that if Northern Ireland's internal problems were solved, there would not be people outside Northern Ireland who would want to make incursions into Northern Ireland because social justice would be prevailing there as it has not done during the period of Unionist rule.

Mr. Pounder: The hon. Member is confusing two issues. There is a group of people—its numbers are perhaps uncertain—which still have territorial interests there and this cannot be overlooked. This is the purpose of the regiment. I think the hon. Member is being a little disingenuous in following that line.

Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) saying that this regiment is designed purely to face a Catholic threat from the South and that it will not be concerned with controlling the other section in the community in Northern Ireland as well? If I followed his argument against that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) correctly, he suggested that the only thing the force will be concerned about will be external security, by which he means that it will be directed entirely to the South. If that is the sort of force he proposes, how

does he expect the Catholic part of the community in Northern Ireland to be willing to join it?

Mr. Pounder: It is clear that I have allowed myself to fall victim to the hour. If I did not make myself clear, I will be more precise.
As I understand the function of the regiment, it will be guarding, for example, communications. That will be one of its internal rôles. It will also be guarding, for example, the border, and that will be one of its external rôles. If I have overemphasised the external angle, I apologise, for there is also an internal one. However, once the internal problems have been eliminated, external problems will remain. At present, there are internal and external problems, but as the situation changes, so the emphasis should change between the internal and external rôles.
I hope, therefore, that the balance which hon. Members on both sides seek for the new force can be achieved.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) pointed out that the debate on this Amendment had been cooler and more cogent than earlier debates. I hope not to interrupt that happy illusion under which he has been living.
While I do not want to raise the temperature, I suggest that a possible explanation why the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) are ready to show good will towards the Amendment is because they consider that it cannot be translated into legislative form. Because hon. Gentlemen opposite expect the Government to express platitudes about the difficulty of accepting a proposal of this kind, they are willing to show good will towards it. But they are not giving anything away.
While not wishing to be critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), since the discussion of the Amendment serves a useful purpose, he must be aware that the proposition "we want a good, balanced force" will be accepted in every quarter of the Committee. No hon. Member—I can say this freely in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham)—would say, "I want an unbalanced force".
It is worth remembering that in Northern Ireland a prominent part of the disease—not just the current one; there is a history of this—has been a hatred of the B Specials because it was, and still is, a 100 per cent, sectarian force. That is part of the disease which we must cure.
My inhibitions about supporting the Government even on this part of the Bill are because I do not believe that we are taking sufficient steps to cure the disease. A whole series of Amendments has been put forward to persuade the Government to achieve the end of abolishing the sectarian force, but nothing I have heard from the Government has convinced me that that will occur. It would be a disaster if at the end we still had a 100 per cent, sectarian force, and this could well happen even with all the safeguards that have been incorporated in the Bill.
Even with the G.O.C. in this country being in command, and all the other provisions which are supposed to safeguard the new force from the old B Specials, it is still possible and likely that the outcome will be a 100 per cent, sectarian force, or an overwhelmingly sectarian force.

Captain Orr: That is defeatist.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that is defeatist, but he also tried to present in advance an excuse, if this should happen, directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). The main part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that my hon. Friend in one breath says that she has no influence and the next moment she is dictating what force it is to be, and a word from her will be sufficient to exclude all Catholics entering the force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster is sabotaging the possibility of making the new force non-sectarian.

Captain Orr: Attempting to.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is already attempting to qualify his extravagant remarks, but there is a graver charge. If he is really opposed to a sectarian force, as he pretends, it is not a question of attempting to sabotage. Some people in Northern

Ireland are already succeeding in sabotaging.
No answer has been given to the letter from a B Specials staff officer, which was read by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster and which said that those who apply and are active enough will move across without any delay into the new defence force, with the words "without any delay" underlined. That is the letter which has been sent to all B Specials from headquarters. That is certainly sabotage of a non-sectarian force because that is a statement made on behalf of one of the officers in the force, saying "If you all move in fast enough, I give you the assurance that you will all be taken into the new force."
3.0 a.m.
We are now told that everybody wants a balanced force. At the same time, those who hold official positions in the existing B Special force have sent out a letter to all B Specials saying that they will all be able to get into the new force. Instead of wasting their breath in accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster of attempting sabotage, if hon. Gentlemen opposite want a non sectarian force they should deal with the people who are actually engaged in sabotage.
Everybody acknowledged the powerful speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration. The most impressive and acceptable part of it was that in which he gave the assurance that if it was a choice between filling up the numbers or securing a balanced force all his preference would go to ensuring that we got the balanced force first. It is all very well to say that to the House on Second Reading, since in this place we are all so agreeable to one another, but why does he not say it to the B Specials? Why does he not say it to the Government at Stormont?
I ask my hon. Friend—and I hope that on this matter at least we shall have a simple "Yes"—was the sentence in his speech about the preference for a balanced force in fixing the numbers part of the deal with the Stormont Government, about which he boasts so much on other occasions and which his hon. Friends have mentioned. Was that part of the agreement? We understand that


there was a rough-and-ready agreement about the name of the force, and that there has been an understanding between them about the numbers. But I want a clear undertaking that in that document, if there is such a document, the matter of giving preference to a balanced force was included as part of the agreement with the Stormont Government. I hope that the answer is a simple "Yes".
If it was not included in the agreement with Stormont it is a fraud on this House. It would be a sad state of affairs, because Stormont would have been deceived. That part of his speech which comprised an undertaking essentially in those terms was agreed with the Stormont Government, and it is as much understood in Stormont as it was by those who will be giving directions to the G.O.C.
The second of my questions is more important because we want the people of Northern Ireland to know about this matter. The people who have to be persuaded to accept a balanced force are not primarily hon. Members in this House, but the people who will form the force in Northern Ireland. Since a letter has been sent out by the B Special officials in Northern Ireland, let another letter be sent out to all B Specials by the Ministry of Defence in this country. Let it be signed by the Defence Minister, who is responsible for the new force, telling them the truth about the new force. They have already been told lies about the force. Why should they not be told the truth?
That is a perfectly proper request. I ask the Government to give the assurance that a letter, signed by the Minister of Defence, will be sent out making clear to all B Specials that the new force will be properly balanced and that the Government will not fill up the figure of 6,000 with all the old B Specials because they have to make the force balanced. If they are not prepared to send out a letter of that kind, then they will be deceiving not merely the House of Commons but the people in Northern Ireland as well. I am making a perfectly reasonable request to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maginnis: If the hon. Gentleman looks in paragraph 10 of the White Paper, Command 4188, he will get his answer.

Mr. Foot: I have paragraph 10 here, but it is improbable that I shall find the answer there. "Lord Hunt's Committee recommended"—we know that that is not a very powerful recommendation, because half of Lord Hunt's recommendations have gone out of the window. But I should not interrupt myself.
Lord Hunt's Committee recommended that this new force should provide full opportunity for all citizens of Northern Ireland to serve the community as a whole. To this end, enrolment will be open to all male citizens of good character of the United Kingdom and Colonies, normally resident in Northern Ireland, whatever their denomination. All applications will be considered centrally by Headquarters, Northern Ireland, which will be the final authority for acceptance of recruits after strict security vetting. Like all entrants to the Army, recruits will be required to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.
The hon. Gentleman has not followed the point. I understood that the Government, and even Stormont, have agreed that they should say to the people of Northern Ireland that people of all denominations would be entitled to join the force. But that is not what we are arguing about. The Minister of State is committed to the proposition that he will hold back the entrance of old B Specials, the sectarian B Specials, into the force to ensure that there is a full opportunity for others to come in. To do that he has to repudiate the statement that has been sent out to all the B Specials that they can transfer en masse into the new force.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the present B Specials are still in operation.

Mr. Foot: I understand it all too well.

Mr. Maginnis: And that if any member of the B Specials, who is acceptable, joins the new force he will immediately transfer from the old to the new force.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must not come to the assistance of the Front Bench. They do not welcome it, because the Minister of State has made a proposition which would conflict with what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is describing what has happened and been promised to them. What has been promised is that all of them—not the cripples, of course—will be able to get into the new force. That is what they have been sold


in Ireland, but that is not what the Government are selling to us. We welcome the hon. Gentleman's bluff honesty. We had all these smooth utterances from these sophisticated people from Northern Ireland before the hon. Gentleman came and "spilled the beans".

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I am the only man in the House of Commons with any experience of these matters.

Mr. Foot: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's "maiden" speech on these matters and look forward to hearing him on future occasions. His intervention has been of great assistance. However, I am serious in my demand that the Government must take steps to correct this absolutely false impression compared with their undertakings to the B Specials. If they do not take them, they will have no chance of building up any such balanced force. If the Government have already made these matters clear in letters to the B Specials—and I do not mean only in general undertakings—let us be told in what terms they have been clear.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree with me when I say that with the best will in the world it will be extremely difficult to build a balanced force. Even with the efforts of the Government, united with the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with the assistance of the Government at Stormont—though many of us are not convinced that the Stormont Government want a balanced force in this form—we think that it will be very difficult. It will be difficult because of the reputation of the B Specials, and because of some of the other provisions which still hem round this proposal.
That is why some of us have been arguing all night to try to get the Government to understand that if they are to get this new force off to a new start it has to be named differently, it has to be organised differently, and that it cannot be arranged and fixed on a basis which defies many of the recommendations made by the Hunt Committee precisely for this purpose.
It is not only that the Government have abandoned in the Bill some of the

essential recommendations of the Hunt Committee. They are also abandoning the spirit of that committee's recommendations for a balanced force. The conclusion in the first section of the Hunt Report is that the great danger of violence in Northern Ireland arises not so much from terrorist acts at all. The Hunt Committee does not dismiss them altogether, but it puts them in the background. The great danger is the recrudescence of sectarian strife. That is why we on this side of the Committee argue, and we are united in this, that if the Government go ahead and re-create a new sectarian force, particularly if they are pretending that they are doing something different, they will only feed that sectarian strife. But, more than that, they will be putting the faggots on the bonfire. They will not be solving the problem.
This is the gulf between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite. However much they talk about a balanced force, they want to deal with what they describe as terrorist acts. They are a legacy of the I.R.A. They talk about people not thinking about the past. They think that the I.R.A. and terrorist threats are the real dangers with which they have to deal. That is the argument on which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South bases his stories of people having to watch all these installations all the time. That is why he says that the force in Northern Ireland must be different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what he thinks the danger is in Northern Ireland, but that is all out of date. The Cameron Commission and the Hunt Committee came to a different conclusion. They concluded that the danger in Northern Ireland derives from the whole system, which breeds sectarian strife. That is the root evil on which they live, and which we have to root out.
I shall vote for the Amendments if they are pressed to a Division, but I do not believe that they will make any major difference. The Government must carry through a whole series of other alterations to the Bill, which they have so far shown no sign of doing. And, even if they accept the Amendment, or the spirit of it, they must translate that into practical action in Northern Ireland. They must make sure immediately that every B Special understands the


undertakings which the Minister has given to this Committee.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is as articulate and persuasive as ever in his argument. Unfortunately, he seems to contradict himself. On the last Amendment hon. Members opposite argued that the force should be restricted to 4,000 rather than 6,000. If we want a properly balanced force the bigger it is the better; the less likely it is that those members of the B Specials who want to remain part of the Defence Regiment can form the predominant part of it, and the more places there will be in it for the minority.

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member is arguing that to get a more balanced force more people are needed. Surely the validity of that argument is based on the existing number in any section being fixed. Even if there were only three people in a community it could be balanced if it were representative of everybody in the larger circle. Therefore, if we are talking about the proportional balance, to which I am opposed, it is as easy to have 40 per cent, of 400 or 4,000 as of 6,000. The hon. Member's argument betrays the fact that he is well aware that there is to be a fixed number in this regiment.

Mr. McMaster: That is so. It is as easy to get a certain proportion with a small as with a large force. But the whole burden of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was that all the B Specials were going to rush straight into the new force. If that is so a larger force is necessary.
I do not agree that this is the main problem or stumbling block to the creation of a properly balanced force; the main stumbling block is the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I have asked her before, and I ask her again: will not she encourage the people of her religion to join this force straight away? There is a proverb that is probably familiar to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, about leading a horse to water. No matter how the Amendment is worded there will be a minority in Northern Ireland who will not be prepared to co-operate. Therefore, although I feel that the Amendment is a very worthy one——

Mr. Rose: Then support it.

Mr. McMaster: I am quite prepared to support it. My only worry is that it implies that there will be questions asked concerning the religion of persons who apply to join the new force. I should like to think that we will soon reach the position when nobody will be asked his religion when he applies to join a new force such as this one—when it will be as irrelevant as asking him what school he went to.

Mr. Norwood: That is the whole point. Is it not the custom in the Six Counties to ask people what school they went to, and is it not easy to deduce from that what faith or persuasion they follow? Will that be changed?

Mr. McMaster: It is for that reason, among others, that I suggest that questions as to religion or education should be regarded as totally irrelevant to any security vetting in such a force.
The difficulty is summarised in the Hunt Report. On page 13 it points out that:
Following the passage of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the setting up of a separate Parliament for Northern Ireland, a Departmental Committee of Inquiry was set up by the then Minister of Home Affairs, Sir Dawson Bates, to inquire into the existing police organisation
in Northern Ireland.
This committee, set up under the Minister of Home Affairs, then recommended that a police force be set up with a strength of 3,000, one-third of which was to be recruited from the Roman Catholic faith. Unfortunately, in practice, only 10 per cent, of the Roman Catholic faith came forward and applied for places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
My worry about this particular provision is not putting it into the Bill—I should like to see it put into the Bill—but the reluctance the minority might feel in joining the force. This is the stumbling block, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was perhaps under-emphasising the difficulties in Northern Ireland. Anyone who reads the Hunt Committee's Report—particularly the first two chapters—will know that the troubles in Northern Ireland stem from


a republican minority which is determined to overthrow—

Mr. Rose: Is it not patently clear from the Cameron and the Hunt Reports that the troubles in Northern Ireland stem from social discrimination, job discrimination and housing discrimination against the minority of the community? That is why they did not join the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the party opposite is going to bring in these sweeping reforms we shall get a new system, but everything which the hon. Member says leads me to believe that he is reluctant to have these reforms.

Mr. McMaster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do better if he would just listen a little more. He should have listened to any of the speeches made in the House by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. He should have referred to paragraph 22 of the Hunt Report and dealt with that—I will read one sentence:
Historical factors are important. Soon after Northern Ireland came into being it had to deal with rioting, arson and brutal killing on a large scale. For example, in three weeks in February, 1922, 138 casualties were reported—96 among Catholics, 42 among Protestants.

Miss Devlin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I point out to him that I was not born until 1947?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat from the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: I will come back to it immediately. I am dealing with the proper balance in the community, and the point has been made by hon. Members opposite that the reason for the troubles in Northern Ireland is because there is not a proper balance kept in these bodies. I am trying to answer that, and to point out that the troubles in Northern Ireland stem from the subversive activities of the I.R.A.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. At present, we are less concerned with the troubles in Northern Ireland than we are with the composition of the force.

Mr. McNamara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am very interested in the points he is making about the proper proportions and balance in this force. As I understand, what he is

asking for is roughly a basis of two to one, majority to minority. He cites as evidence for this incidents which happened earlier in the century. The interesting thing about the evidence he set out was that although the ratio he is looking for is two to one, Unionist to minority, the casualties he is citing as evidence against these extremists were two to one the other way.

Mr. McMaster: Yes, the casualties in that case in 1922 were a total of 232 people killed and over 1,000 wounded, and £3 million worth of damage. But to come up to date, the hon. Lady has referred to her own lifetime. It will be within her experience that there was a similar campaign of violence between 1956 and 1962. During that period there were 1,600 incidents of violence; six members of the security forces were killed; 32 were injured; and damage to property amounting to more than £1 million was sustained.
Figures like these, which are shocking, show that the problems in Northern Ireland do not stem from some internal grievances. There is a direct violent, armed attack from outside and from within by a subversive element who wish to upset the State. The facts speak for themselves.
I want to contradict some of the statements which have been made to the effect that the Roman Catholic minority is downtrodden in Northern Ireland. It is not.

The Temporary Chairman: Order, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to develop that theme he must relate it to the composition of the proposed force.

Mr. McMaster: I certainly shall, Sir Alfred. It has been suggested that the minority does not play its full part and, therefore, will not join the force and make it work. I will give some examples of the way in which the minority plays its part in the community. The hon. Lady may know that the President of Queen's University Association last year was a Roman Catholic woman doctor. The President of the Incorporated Law Society in Northern Ireland was a Roman Catholic Coleraine solicitor. The present President of the Ulster Chemists' Association is also a Catholic.

Miss Devlin: As the hon. Member addressed these remarks to me, I think


that I should make my position clear. I do not care if everybody he has listed is Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, black or white. I am not basically interested in who, what or when in regard to the woman doctor from a university. I am worried about the average of 10 per cent, unemployed in Northern Ireland. I am not particularly interested in the religion of those who are unemployed, either. I am worried about those who are not president of anything. I am not worried about the religion of somebody who gets to be president of something.

Mr. McMaster: I see that the hon. Lady does not like having the facts stated. I have referred to a group of leading citizens in Northern Ireland who are Roman Catholics. In the police force, two of the Six Counties have Roman Catholic head constables Last year, four out of the Six Counties had Roman Catholic county inspectors. The Deputy Commissioner for Belfast is also Roman Catholic.

An Hon. Member: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Rose: Order.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman who shouts "Order" has not listened to the debate, otherwise he would have heard the point being made by the hon. Member for Blackley and others—

Mr. Rose: It was the hon. Member for Blackley who shouted "Order".

Mr. McMaster: —that the reason for the troubles in Northern Ireland was that the composition of public bodies was unbalanced. I have quoted a few facts to disprove that point.
I ask the hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to use their influence to secure, not only that the words they wish to be incorporated into the Bill are so incorporated, but, also, that the minority is encouraged on every occasion and in every way to join the new force and make it work. Only in that way will we establish a progressive society in Northern Ireland and tackle some of the problems of poverty about which the hon. Lady is worried.

3.30 a.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I rise

before some of my hon. Friends who want to speak and who may continue to want to speak, because I suspect that some of the things I can say may change the course of the debate, if not fundamentally at least to a degree which both sides would welcome. I will try to do that by answering as best I can some of the direct questions put to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Paul B. Rose) asked for two specific assurances. The first was that the Government at Westminster had not yielded to the Government at Stormont. The second was that there was no shabby deal. I hope that we will not have to reiterate at the be-beginning of every debate that not only has there been no shabby deal: there has been no deal at all. I make that point very clear as, and with the authority of, the Minister of the Government who carried on most of the conversations with the Government at Stormont.
Of course, conversations there were. As I said on winding up the Second Reading debate, I take the view now, as I did then, that conversations between this Government and Stormont were absolutely appropriate and that to have refused to talk to Stormont would have been certainly irresponsible and probably unconstitutional. Of course there were attempts between this Government and the Government there to produce a formula for the force which was acceptable to both Governments.
But, as I said on Second Reading, there were occasions when that sort of agreement was just not possible. I said that it was not possible, for instance, in terms of the training obligation which we require members of the force to undergo—for us, a fundamental point of principle about the character of the force. When we believed that our principles could not be accommodated within the terms of reference which Stormont hoped to lay down for the force, we stood by our terms of reference and our principles. There was no deal of any sort, which implies that points were given and taken not on their merits, but in the simple hope of achieving some sort of agreement between the two parties.
We are utterly open, as is every Government, to the accusation of misjudgment about the White Paper and the proposals, but the accusation to which


we cannot legitimately have to give answer is the accusation that it is not our own judgment. If there are errors in the White Paper and in the Bill, they are the errors of this Government and this Government alone. Although—I say again—it was our hope that we could take the Stormont Government with us entirely, it was our success that we could take them with us substantially, but the policy is ours and, of course, must remain ours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley, expressed fears about the "shabby deal" in terms of a speech which I made about a fortnight ago. I said then—and what I say about the Amendment must be seen against the background of what The Guardian called "the fears in the minds of the majority"—that it would be irresponsible of this House not to realise that there are many people among the majority of the community in Northern Ireland who are fearful about the prospects for the future.
It would be irresponsible of us not to echo the words of my hon. Friend, whose phrase I fear I paraphrase, about a small force which would or might resort to violence and would not let Ireland's wounds heal. His phrase was slightly more metaphorical even than that, but he talked about the existence of these people, and our attempts to create an acceptable force must bear in mind that such people do exist, and to a degree we must take cognisance of their existence.
But to them and to the Committee and to my hon. Friend, when he asks the frank question, "Do you want Catholics in this regiment?", I answer, as I believe every hon. Member answers, "Of course I do." It is a fundamental part of the Bill and a fundamental part of the answer to that question that the question is being asked in the House and of the Government at Westminster. My hon. Friend asks what assurance we can give that Catholics will be recruited voluntarily. I go even further than to say that that is an assurance which we give. I believe that it is more than a matter of simply ensuring that the minority community is not kept out; we have an important job to do in ensuring that the minority community is encouraged to come in.
May I describe the ways in which we hope to achieve a balanced force? I accept entirely that there are a number of acid tests which are in the minds of hon. Members and of people in Northern Ireland by which they will judge whether we are sincere in that desire, and at least three of them have been put to me formally and forcefully tonight. The first is the issue whether there will be wholesale transfer of the Special Constabulary from that force into the new regiment.
If the answer to that question is one on which hon. Members will base their judgment of the desire to produce a properly balanced force, they can be absolutely reassured. There will not be wholesale transfer of Special Constables into the new force if by that my hon. Friends mean or imply that it will be an automatic process done in large numbers and in complete groups—something which Special Constables can take for granted. I regret burdening the Committee with details at this hour, but I must explain what will happen. Individuals will apply to join the new force by drawing application forms from such public centres as those at which forms for various purposes are to be obtained throughout the United Kingdom. They will post those forms to the G.O.C., Northern Ireland. That is what will happen if they are men who have no previous service in the Army or the police or if they are men presently serving in the Special Constabulary. They will apply individually and they will be judged on their individual merits. The question of wholesale or automatic transfer is very far from our minds and will not be operated.
The second issue which is a litmus test of our good intentions is that about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) warned me that he wanted to know and which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has raised on his behalf—our attitude towards those who believe in a united Ireland. Our position on that is equally clear. There can be no place in the force for anyone who believes in an unconstitutional change in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Clearly, there can be no place in the force for anyone who does not accept the constitution of the United Kingdom


and the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen and all that goes with it. But if there are people who say—and I take the example of one constitutional method—that if there were to be a plebiscite in Northern Ireland tomorrow they might vote for unity with the South; or if there are people who say, "If there were candidates in General Elections, properly nominated, who stood on the platform of unity, we should vote for them"?—that could not possibly be a reason for their exclusion from the force.

Miss Devlin: This is a serious problem. My hon. Friend says that one could vote for such a candidate and still be a member of the force. Could a person who stood as a candidate be a member of the force? If a person said, "I accept the existence of the constitution, but I will endeavour through peaceful means to change it", could he be a member of the force?

Mr. Hattersley: That is covered by a later Amendment but the regulations governing the force will prohibit members of it from issuing election addresses, and in their case, as in the case of other members of the Armed Forces, a candidate will not be eligible for membership of the force, or at least, at the point of his candidature, he will have to resign. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will forgive me for citing him as an example. His beliefs will not prevent him from joining the force, but his membership of this House will.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked for a double assurance. He referred to the sentence in my speech on Second Reading when I said that, were I to choose, or were I to be forced into a choice, between a force which ran up to the maximum size at an early date or a force which was properly balanced, I would choose a balanced force.
My hon. Friend asked whether that was part of a deal with Stormont. I hope that he accepts from me, as he did from my hon. Friend, that it could not be part of a deal because there was no deal. I hope that he also accepts that the decision about the force levels and the choice between a large force and a balanced force is a decision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Defence. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will be here ensuring that my right hon. Friend's decision is carried out, although I am sure that he has no doubts about my right hon. Friend's integrity in this matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank my hon. Friend for the clear way in which he has stated the answer. I certainly do not question that the Secretary of State will try and carry that out, but I want to know whether or not Stormont has agreed to his interpretation. My hon. Friend may say that there is no such thing as a deal, but I believe that it is a question of semantics, because I believe that there has been an understanding or conversation or discussion on this point and I presume that the conclusions are written. I want to know whether this undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of State has been accepted by the Stormont Government.

Mr. Hattersley: There is no question about this. I have no doubt that the Stormont Government are as anxious to obtain a properly balanced force as we are, but it is not possible for me constitutionally to commit Stormont to a specific point of view. I think that my hon. Friend will accept my judgment of their attitude towards this new force; which is an enthusiasm for a balanced force. That enthusiasm is shared between them, my hon. Friend and myself. Nothing I have heard or read or seen suggests that Stormont would stand in the way of a balanced force of the sort we all choose.
My hon. Friend also asked about advertising, the television programmes and the application forms. I believe, as I said on Second Reading, that it was a misguided but not dishonourable step. But we must think about the future rather than the past and the future will be more clear if the regulations governing the recruitment of the force are made clear to some members of the Special Constabulary who may now be confused as to what the recruitment obligations are.
While I do not wish to recriminate about the application forms, because that would be inappropriate, I am attracted by the suggestion that the proper and appropriate method of recruitment should be notified to the members of the B


Specials. I reject the idea of writing to all the members of the B Specials, I shall look as sympathetically as I can at the idea of writing to the force outlining the appropriate methods of recruitment as I have given them to the Committee.

Mr. Michael Foot: Not only outlining to them the proper methods of recruitment, but also the meaning of my hon. Friend's undertaking, outlining to the B Specials that some of them, after applications go ahead, may be held back for the purpose of securing that there shall be a balanced force and that that takes priority. Then they would know that this is to be a quite different force from the B Specials.

[MR. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Harttersley: My hon. Friend's suggestion is getting dangerously near the level of recrimination which I have rejected. However, I assure him that we shall certainly send a description, which is in no way polemical or contentious, of the proper method of recruitment. I hope that he will think that that is a proper step and a step which is absolutely on all fours with what we wish had been done four weeks ago.
I make two or three other points which, I hope, will be of some comfort to hon. Members. Understanding as we do the absolute necessity of promoting enthusiasm among the minority in Northern Ireland for membership of this force, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already asked the new colonel-commandant of the regiment, General Anderson, to take as a special and immediate charge the obligation of promoting it within the minority community and visiting the leaders of the minority community so that they should be encouraged to join.
One of his special tasks will be to recruit wherever possible Catholic ex-Service men, people who could join the force and become immediately effective. What one does not want is a force which is composed of Catholics who need to be trained over some period and Protestants who could go out into the country immediately. We will, therefore, be concentrating on ex-Service men who

can fulfil an immediate part in the force so that there will be a balance of effective members as well as of members on the roll.
As the Committee knows, we have announced the setting up of an advisory council which will advise the G.O.C. on the composition of the force. Being well aware that the proper balance of the force is a matter not only of recruitment but of promotion within the force and who does what in the force, we have now constructed terms of reference for this advisory council which require it to advise the G.O.C, Northern Ireland, on the general policy for the administration of the Ulster Defence Regiment. These are all things which. I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and the supporters of his initial Amendment will regard as encouraging.
I say that because I now have to say to him that regrettably—and I hope that he will understand that I mean regrettably—the Amendment is not in language which is capable of legal definition and, therefore, cannot be put on the Statute Book in the knowledge that its interpretation and operation might be challenged in the courts.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone that the Government have an obligation to do more than say that an Amendment is technically incorrect, that they have an obligation to correct it if they believe in its spirit. I hope that what I have said now demonstrates that the Government do more than what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale described as mouthing the usual platitudes. We have a cogent policy for putting the policy outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley into operation. I hope that my hon. Friends, who share with me the desire to see the spirit of the Amendment incorporated into our policy, will believe that it is not only the Government's intention, but that we now have the wherewithall to do it.

Mr. Goodhart: Of course, we accept the assurances of the Minister of Defence for Administration. It would be desirable for the Minister's reply to that section of the debate which we have completed to be circulated as widely as possible in Northern Ireland. I therefore regret that the Government have compelled us to have this debate at a


time when it will be impossible for those words to be reported in any of the Northern Irish newspapers. Still, that is a matter for the Government and not for the Opposition.
We know that the Government intend that there should be a proper balance in the force. We know that the Government intend that the whole recruiting and vetting procedure for the regiment will be in the hands of Regular soldiers answerable to the Ministry of Defence. It seems to me inconceivable that in the foreseeable future any Minister at the Department will not want the regiment to reflect a proper balance of the community in Northern Ireland. Any Government, both here and at Stormont, are bound to want to get a proper balance between the communities.
But the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he feared there was a likelihood that the force would be 100 per cent, sectarian. I do not think that after the Hunt Report, the White Paper, the Second Reading speeches and the discussions we have had tonight one can say that the force will be 100 per cent, sectarian because of any recruiting or vetting procedures that the Government would introduce. If it is 100 per cent, sectarian, it can only be because one section of the community chooses not to come forward.
The Hunt Committee, in paragraphs 121 and 122 of its report, outlined some of the pressures that members of the Catholic community have been subjected to in the past to try to persuade them not to enlist in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is a danger that pressure will be put on some Catholics not to accept membership of this force. I hope that that will not be so, but if Amendment No. 3 were accepted the danger of that happening would perhaps increase, because people might think that they would then have a veto power on the establishment of the whole force.
The Minister referred in passing to Amendment No. 5, which says:
Provided any person wishing to enlist shall not be debarred either on grounds of religious or political opinions.
That is a perfectly reasonable point of view to hold in Penistone or, indeed, in Beckenham. But there are places where political views are stronger and more violent. I hope that the Government will

accept the views expressed by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at the weekend, when he said:
We cannot be expected to accept as a responsible member of our community someone who speaks peace today but who advocated or even used violence yesterday, and may do so again tomorrow.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by that statement the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is condemning the last Prime Minister but one of Northern Ireland, Lord Brooke-borough, and so many members of his own party who preached treason, sedition and criminal action against the Crown in 1912?

Mr. Goodhart: That is not one of the more sensible interventions we have had this evening.
We should bear in mind that the religious balance is not the only balance that matters in Northern Ireland. It is important for the success of the regiment that there should be a reasonable flow of recruits throughout Northern Ireland in both country and urban areas. The only guide that the Government can have as to whether recruits are likely to come forward in all parts of Northern Ireland comes from those much-maligned application forms which have been sent to all members of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
I do not know what the response to those application forms has been, but I would like the Minister to say what would happen if recruitment went very badly in one or two counties. Is it intended that, in that event, the vulnerable points in those counties should be guarded by members of the Ulster Defence Regiment drafted in from other counties, or will Regular soldiers be expected to undertake this rôle? Does the Minister intend to take any further soundings about recruiting intentions before the force is established?
Meanwhile, I am sure that the whole Committee, with almost no exceptions, will hope that a satisfactory balance in every respect will be achieved in recruiting for the regiment, and I hope that the leaders of all communities will encourage their followers to join.

Mr. Fitt: The speech by my hon. Friend the Minister has shortened my speech considerably and I am certain


that I speak on behalf of many of my hon. Friends when I say that he has allayed a good deal of their suspicions.
I want to make clear, for the benefit of my constituents at home and for the minority in Northern Ireland, the undertakings which we have been given by the Minister in his remarks at the Dispatch Box. Can I tell my constituents that any of those people in Northern Ireland who believe in the peaceful reunification of the island of Ireland—the reunification being the joining of the six Northern Ireland counties into a republic where there would be one Government for the island of Ireland—provided that they set out to obtain this by peaceful methods, by the ballot box and by persuasion, will not be debarred from joining this force?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend can tell them that as long as they believe in the constitutional and peaceful process they will no more be debarred from joining the force or the British Army than would people who believed in the constitutional and peaceful process which might produce separate Parliaments for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that. Those who may be opposed to the Unionist Party, the Government party in Northern Ireland, at present and for many years have been regarded as politically suspect and dangerous by the authorities in Northern Ireland. I accept what my hon. Friend has said that they will not be debarred from joining this force.
Before finally accepting my hon. Friend's assurances, however, I should like to put to him a few minor points which could be major points in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend has told us that he is thinking on the lines of an advisory committee. Could he give any indication of the way in which that committee will be set up? Will it advise on recruiting or have any say in the intake or the personnel who are recruited for the regiment?
Here is a most important point. I take it, now that the Minister has almost accepted the Amendment, that he wants to have a balanced force in Northern Ireland in the regiment. How will we know, however, how recruitment for the force is going? Will we be advised by

the advisory committee in Northern Ireland, or can we put down Questions in this House?

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Mr. Fitt: If I am not here, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) can put down Questions. In what way will we frame them? Will we ask whether there appears to be a balanced number of people from the community in general, or will we specify Catholics or Protestants outright, so that people in Northern Ireland will understand? If we asked Questions requesting the Minister to say how many Protestants and how many Catholics had joined the force at that time, would the Minister be able to answer? If it was found that in the weeks immediately following the setting up of the force that there seemed to be a representative body joining the force, that would encourage others and we would finally arrive at the ideal of a balanced force.
Can the Minister give undertakings on these points, for they are most important? They will determine to a great extent the efforts of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend asked for two specific assurances. I can give him both. I can give him them because the application form—not the so-called application form, but the form not yet sent out, the official form—will require potential members of the force to stipulate their religion, which is a normal practice in the British Army and one which we must know in this context to make a judgment for which my hon. Friend asks. When we know that he will be entitled to put down Questions in a specific form and we shall be under obligation to give a mathematical answer.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend the Minister has met most of the points I put forward when I moved the Amendment, and the points put forward by my hon. Friends. He will find that when the Front Bench is reasonable the back benches will be reasonable in response. On this occasion my hon. Friend has given an undertaking that there will be no massive transfer of B Specials to this new force. He accepts the need for positive steps to ensure a balanced force and not merely to


acquiesce in getting on with the job of recruiting from the minority section of the population.
My hon. Friend said that the only reason he cannot accept the Amendment is the legal one of drafting, but he accepts its spirit. As he accepts the spirit, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but in doing so I wish to emphasise that there are deep-seated fears on the part of the minority in Northern Ireland about the composition of the force, and it is its composition which is all important. Only a few hours ago I received a letter from the North Tyrone Association of the National Democratic Party. One important paragraph stated:
The minority here welcomed the Hunt Report, not least for its recommendation to disband the 'B' Specials. Because of the way in which overtures are being made to the Specials to join the Ulster Defence Regiment, while, oddly enough, British ex-Service men are ignored, the minority has now the gravest misgivings about the composition and real purpose of this Regiment. It is fast becoming an irritant and jeopardising the willingness of the minority to play a full part in bringing about the reconciliation and reintegration so vital if there is to be any future for the people of Northern Ireland.
That paragraph sums up my fears and the misgivings of myself and many hon. Friends. The Minister has gone a long way to allay fears in this respect. Obviously, he has not satisfied us in other respects. Perhaps this may be a lesson to the Front Bench. If it is forthcoming some of us will not have to press these matters, as we have had to press others, in the Division Lobby. I thank my hon. Friend for his undertakings. He certainly will be held to them. He has accepted responsibility on behalf of the Government. I am sure that my hon. Friends will ensure in the months to come that the Government will live up to those promises and obligations. If they do not, the Government will have to answer for that. On the basis of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
'and shall not have attained the age of fifty years on the date of such enrolment'.
Because, when discussing the last Amendment, the Minister was reasonably

forthcoming, we were able to make speedy progress. I hope that adequate assurances will be given on this occasion, so that my hon. Friends and I will not be obliged to press the Amendment to a Division.
If the Government are sincere in wishing to create a force which in no way resembles the B Specials, they should be prepared to accept an age limit, and the Amendment suggests 50. There is no such limit for entry into the B Specials and I understand that some of its members are well over 50.

Mr. Fitt: Some are 80.

Mr. Heffer: It cannot be described as the sort of force the Government wish to create. We must, therefore, consider the age limits which apply to enrolment to the Regular Army and the volunteer forces generally; that is, if we are to destroy the image of the B Specials once and for all.
The 1967 regulations applying to T.A.V.R. and recruitment show that for a series of regiments the entry age for a subaltern is 30; for a captain, 32; major, 37; lieutenant-colonel, 45; a colonel in one case up to 48 and in another case up to 50. But 50 is the limit. The officers' retiring age goes up to 57. For soldiers the upper age limit for enlistment, for the Army and the T.A.V.R. Group A, R.A.C., R.A., R.E., Royal Signals, Infantry, including the airborne forces and S.A.S. with no previous experience with the Armed Forces is 32; with previous experience with the armed forces it is 35. The upper age limit for discharge is 45.
Table 2 gives a series of other arms, including the R.E., R.C.T., R.A.M.C., R.O.C., R.E.M.E., R.M.P., M.P.S.C, with age limits for enlistment of 44, 40 and 40, with the lower age limits for discharge of 48, 45 and 45. The upper age limit for enlistment is 50 and the upper age limit for discharge is 54. There are exceptions—the bandsmen, who qualify at 56 and have an upper age limit for discharge of 60.
I expect that many of the B Specials were good bandsmen. In Liverpool, the members of the Orange Lodge were very good at playing the drums and fifes. I would not expect that all the B Specials


would be bandsmen. In the TAVR nowhere is the age limit for recruitment more than 50, and only in exceptional cases is it 50, but with the B Specials it was quite different.
The Bill does not mention an age limit. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said:
In fact, the fundamental proof is that the para-military force, the organisation to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington referred so often, is gone. There is no longer, or there will no longer be, subject to the wish of this House, a para-military force in Northern Ireland. There will be a military force, which will be part of the Army—not, I hasten to say, the British Army, if Britain does not include the entire United Kingdom, but an Army which is the Army of the people of Northern Ireland as well as the Army of the people of England, Scotland and Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1969: Vol. 791, c. 1443.]
It is part of the British Army. Although it is not the T.A.V.R., in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), the Minister of Defence for Administration said that, nevertheless, there were certain similarities between the two forces but they should not be overestimated. One of the similarities that should clearly be written into the Bill, or should clearly be spelt out by the Government Front Bench today, is the matter of the age limit. Therefore, it is clear that Schedule 8 of the regulations covering the T.A.V.R. should apply, excluding bandsmen since we do not mind a few drum and fife players at the age of 60. But other than bandsmen, the personnel must conform to the regulations laid down in Schedule 8. That is what the Amendment is about.
4.15 a.m.
We do not want to push this matter to a Division. We are reasonable men and will act reasonably provided we receive proper assurances from the Government. We feel that there must equally be a balance in the matter of age so that the force will be brought into line with the T.A.V.R. If this is done, I am certain that the matter will be able to proceed without lengthy argument.
If, on the other hand, my hon. Friends are not prepared to accept this reasonable Amendment, it will indicate that they are giving way to the pressures to which they have been subjected from

the Stormont Government. If the Stormont Government believed that there could be an almost automatic transference from the B Specials into the new force, that would mean they could not accept the age limit because it would eliminate a considerable section of the present B Specials.
I wish that my Front Bench would take note of what I am saying. I am not making a speech for the sake of hon. Members in the Committee. I am making it for the sake of the Front Bench.

Mr. Healey: We are listening very carefully.

Mr. Heffer: If my right hon. and hon. Friends are listening carefully, I hope that they will give us the assurances that we seek so that this part of our proceedings could move rapidly to an end.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), in proposing Amendment No. 4, went to some lengths to pretend that he was putting it forward purely for the purpose of conformity. He deceived nobody in the Committee. The Amendment is put down solely to try to affect the maximum number of the Ulster Special Constabulary who might wish to take up positions in the new regiment.
I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 174 of the Hunt Report, which draws attention to
… the excellent services rendered to the Ulster Special Constabulary and the community at large by the permanent and full-time officers and members of that Force and express the hope that they will find it possible to continue in office for as long as their services are required.
This is directly relevant to the Amendment. Most people who have known the Ulster Special Constabulary over the years would agree that the sergeant instructors who are posted throughout the country are the backbone of the force.
Almost universally those sergeant instructors are ex-Regular battalion or regimental sergeant majors from the British Army. They are men of considerable calibre. They know the countryside, they know the right type of man to recruit for a new force, and they know a considerable amount about the purpose of the new force. I know that it is hard for hon. Members below the Gangway to


admit it, but the purpose of the new regiment is the same as that of the Ulster Special Constabulary: to fight I.R.A. and other terrorist attacks on Northern Ireland.
Certainly, no one setting up a force with this objective, when there is another force which has carried out this function highly satisfactorily and successfully for a number of years, would want to throw expertise immediately out of the window——

Mr. Russell Kerr: It is to be the same.

Mr. Clark: The object of the force has always been the same: to fight terrorism in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman would pretend that it will never happen again. We have heard it many times in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we are older and wiser. Power lines have been blown up, telephone poles have been sawn down and police barracks have been attacked again and again. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to suppose that these attacks will not be repeated in future, I should be delighted if he would stand up and tell us why we should believe that the terrorist attacks which have continued almost without interval for 50 years will come to an end in this year of Grace——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite a bit from the Amendment.

Mr. Clark: I apologise. I was taken away. If the hon. Gentleman has reason to suppose that the purpose of the force will be changed from that of the Ulster Special Constabulary, we would be delighted to hear it.
The hon. Member for Walton suggested that the B Specials had no age limitation. That is untrue. When the B Specials were reduced from their normal level of 12,000 to 8,000 two years ago an age limit of 60 was introduced. It is worth noting that reduction which took place two years ago. There is no doubt that there has been long service in the Ulster Special Constabulary of reliable and sober men who are experienced at their jobs. Anyone forming a new regiment with the same purpose as the U.S.C. would want to draw a reasonable proportion of men from that force to train and to teach the new recruits the normal methods which have been

found effective over the years of countering terrorist attacks.
I believe that the Government have been wise in making this provision that men, even slightly in excess of 55—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Mrs. Anne Kerr rose——

Mr. Clark: I will give way in a moment. I am in the middle of a sentence, or I was until I was interrupted.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I should like——

Mr. Clark: I am not giving way.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will give way later.

Mr. Clark: The Ulster Special Constabulary is composed of a rather aged group of men because, on the whole, men tend to stay a long time and the numbers have been limited over the years. Therefore, any force being set up to replace it would be unwise not to draw on the experience of those men to teach the normal methods for dealing with terrorism.
We have heard a great deal of innuendo about the Ulster Special Constabulary, but we have heard remarkably little fact today. If the Amendment is designed, as I believe, strictly to exclude members of the U.S.C, I think that, before the debate is concluded, the hon. Member for Walton will be wise to try to add a little fact to the innuendo about the U.S.C. of which we have heard so much. With considerably more experience of the U.S.C. over the years——

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose——

Mr. Clark: The hon. Lady always seems to rise when I am in full flight.
With considerably more experience of the U.S.C. than almost any Member of the House of Commons, and certainly more than the hon. Member for Walton has gained from his experience of Irish people in Liverpool, I can say that the U.S.C. can bear examination man for man in its prime function of defeating terrorism with any force in the world?

Mr. Heffer: What has that to do with the Amendment? The hon. Gentleman really is stupid.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Clark: We like to have efficient forces. The object of the new force is to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. If that is not its object, I do not know what is. I am sorry. I am being carried away from my point.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar): Tedious repetition.

Mr. Clark: The suggestion is that the new regiment should be made to conform with the Territorial Army. There is no direct resemblance to the T.A. in this new force. It is for local employment only. It is not expected to go overseas. The main requirement of the men is local knowledge and experience of the kind of job which they will carry out.
I rate the security of Northern Ireland quite high, and I believe that it is important to recruit a reasonable proportion of men from the U.S.C. into the new force. I believe that it is important to recruit a number of the older age group, particularly sergeant instructors, adjutants, and some of the county commanders, many of whom are over the age limit which the hon. Gentleman suggests, to form the new Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. Richard: In accordance with the new-found atmosphere of good will that is existing in the Committee at twenty-five minutes past four perhaps I might at this stage say one or two things about the Amendment.
I should like, first, to take up the point about drawing a comparison with the TAVR. It is not quite accurate that the upper retiring age is as inflexible as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested. There is a general provision whereby the upper age limit for enlistment can be waived, and there is a further provision that the upper age limit for the ranks of warrant officer and senior N.C.O may be extended by one year at a time with the approval of the commanding officer, and provided the people concerned are within the medical retention standards of their corps. The analogy is not, therefore, totally exact. I have some sympathy with the merits of the Amendment, but I fear that I shall not be in a position to ask the Committee to accept it and write this provision into the Bill.
I should like to correct some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark). The hon. Gentleman seemed to give the impression that the age limit for N.C.O.s and other ranks of the U.S.C. should be as high as 55 if a substantial proportion of them were to join the new force. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The position is that of the officers in the U.S.C, 55 per cent. are over 50, but only 15 per cent, of the N.C.O.s and other ranks are over 50.

Mr. Henry Clark: What is the figure for sergeant instructors?

Mr. Richard: I cannot give that figure without notice.
The disparity in the figures for officers and N.C.O.s and other ranks is remarkable. As I said, 55 per cent, of the officers are over 50, but only 15 per cent, of the N.C.O.s and men are over 50. Therefore, from the point of view of recruiting men in the older age bracket at present serving in the U.S.C, the problem is one of officers and not one of senior N.C.O.s and other ranks.
I think that my hon. Friend should see this Amendment and the Government's attitude to it against the background of the concessions which have been made in this debate, and particularly against the background of the Advisory Committee, the regulations which are to be introduced, which make it clear that this new force is to be part of the British Army, and also the assurances which have been given about the determination of the Government to produce a non-sectarian and well-balanced force.
My hon. Friend should also see it against the background of the additional training obligations which members of the new force will have to accept. The training obligations proposed for the Ulster Defence Regiment are much more onerous than those which it was necessary for the U.S.C. to undertake. It also follows that if they are to train harder they will have to be fitter. I understand that there have already been indications from certain members of the Ulster Special Constabulary that, irrespective of any other factors, the increased training obligation together with the increased health standards will make some of the older men think very hard about whether


they would even wish to join the new force when it is set up.
In turn, it is bound to mean that in view of the fact that the size of the force will be substantially reduced from its present size, adding all these factors, a considerable proportion of the officers in the Ulster Special Constabulary who are in the older age groups will have to retire.
4.30 a.m.
The problem for the Government in accepting the Amendment is that in the initial administration of the new force we shall have to build upon some of the officers and senior N.C.O.s and men of the Ulster Special Constabulary who, so far as we can see, are over the age of 50 and, therefore, would be outside the scope of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I want to say two things about that: first, it would not be our intention—as best we can—that the age limit of 55 as set out in the White Paper should be wholly permanent. If we reach a situation in which people over 50 were neither coming forward nor were needed as part of the interim administrative measures the Government would be prepared to reconsider—at that stage—a reduction in the age limit from 55 to a lower figure. But I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Government will reduce the age limit from 55 to 50, at any rate within the period when the new force is being set up. When it has been set up and organised the Government will be prepared to consider the figure again.
If we found that the training demanded of the new force was clearly being too strenuous for people in the age bracket 50 to 55, rather than reduce the training obligation and the health standard that goes with it the Government would prefer to reconsider the age limit. Therefore, looking at what my hon. Friend is proposing against the background, first, of the fact that firm assurances have been given and that very comprehensive machinery is being set up to ensure that the new force is non-sectarian, and that only the right people will get into it; secondly, of the increased training obligations and, therefore, the required health standards; and, thirdly, of the fact that we would not necessarily see the age limit of 55 as a permanent one—although, as an interim measure, I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance

for which he asks I hope that he will not feel obliged to divide the Committee.

Mr. Lubbock: We seem to do better with the other Minister. Perhaps it is just his bad luck, but the Under-Secretary of State seems far less forthcoming than his colleague. I was very disapointed with his answer, because most of his arguments seemed to be in support of the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman said that the force will be part of the British Army. Let us look at what Queen's Regulations say about the age limits for persons serving in the British Army. I refer the Minister to Regulation 377(b), which allows Service men to continue only until the age of 55 except under certain exceptional circumstances, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) outlined in relation to the TAVR.
Regulation 377(b) says:
A soldier above the age of 45 years may be permitted to continue in service either:—
(i) for a limited period; (ii) or for an extended career regimentally, extra-regimentally, or on the Long Service List, in which case every effort will be made to give him further periods of continuance in service up to his 55th birthday.
As I remember my period of service the regulation was designed to cater for specialist tradesmen and not only for men in the band. In my regiment we had a tailor who was a great expert and could not be dispensed with. He continued to serve up to his 55th birthday. Apart from these specialist trades there was no question of permission being granted under Regulation 377(b). In most cases one finds that the Service man enlists up to the age of 25 for a period of 22 years' service, and, therefore, the maximum ordinary retirement age in the regular forces would be 47, which is even lower than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton has proposed in his Amendment.
If this force is to be an integral part of the British Army, I go further than the hon. Gentleman and say, "Let us apply the same age criteria to it as to all our other forces." I was much struck by what the hon. Gentleman said about the training obligations of this force—much more onerous, he said, than those applied to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This meant, he said, that recruits to the


new force would have to be that much fitter, and he said that we would have to review the upper age limits if we found that people were incapable of undertaking the work. If we heed hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee, who dealt with the threat of terrorist attacks, we would conclude that it would be a mistake to have anyone serving in the force over the age of 40.
Let us have a look at what the force is to be required to do, according to the White Paper. The liability for service, according to paragraph 8(i),
relates to what Lord Hunt's Committee called 'the threat of armed guerilla-type attack' and will permit rapid reaction to meet any local emergency.
For a start, these people will have to be so fit that if a power station or telegraph line is attacked, they can go out at the double and approach the site of the threatened action or the actual terrorist attack. To do this they will obviously have to be extremely fit, but this is only the first part of their possible duties. They even may have to be called out
for whole-time service in defence of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended attack
or
for whole-time service in circumstances of imminent national danger or great emergency.
Frankly, I hope that this country does not have to depend for its security on relatively old men of 55 in circumstances of national danger or great emergency. I would not feel at all safe, if I were a citizen of Northern Ireland, in thinking that I was being protected by people of such advanced age in comparison with our Armed Forces as a whole. I am sure that we did not permit people to serve up to the age of 55 during the war.
We are considering, according to the circumstances envisaged in this White Paper, almost an extreme situation. The Secretary of State for Defence himself said in his speech on Second Reading:
Hon. Members will appreciate that the threat is of an attack on key points and installations by armed bands and members of subversive organisations. And … the attacks do not necessarily come from terrorists on one side of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. An armed band could originate within Ulster, or, as in the past, come across the

border from the Irish Republic. Its objective could be sabotage, seizing arms, or undermining public morale."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1969, Vol. 791, c. 1322.]
These are very serious threats indeed for old people to be coping with, and here again I am reinforced in the view that if anything the hon. Member for Walton has set the age limit too high.

Mr. McMaster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. But does he not realise that in a case like this the auxiliary forces would quite often simply set up road barricades, and that many of these men are farmers who are fitter than townsmen half their age?

Mr. Lubbock: No, I do not see their duties as only setting up road blocks. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I read from the White Paper, and to what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, he would see that their duties are much wider and that actual terrorist attacks which are hypothesised here.
Therefore, alternatives should be considered. My suggestion is that the hon. Gentleman should consider what was said on the last Amendment about obtaining ex-Regulars, wherever possible, to fill posts in the new force. This was said by the Minister of Defence for Administration to be one of the means of ensuring a proper balance of communities in Northern Ireland serving in the U.D.R.
There must be many thousands of ex-Regulars who are below the age limit of 50 and who could be brought in and who would have the background, experience, and knowledge of the Armed Forces to enable them to take up key posts in the new force. I cannot accept that it is essential to have this transitional provision for people to be recruited above the age of 50 when I am certain that a large reservoir of talent must exist within the Province of people who would be just as good as any serving in the Ulster Special Constabulary now.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) said that the intention of the Amendment was to eliminate the maximum possible number of the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Minister will have noted by my remarks that that is not my intention. I want


to make the new force as efficient as it can be. I suspect from having listened to him that the intention of some hon. Members is to retain the maximum number of the U.S.C. in senior positions in the new force as they can.

Mr. Henry Clark: I should have thought that, if a force had fought over countryside against a particular enemy over a number of years, the experience it had gained in that form of fighting and of that countryside might be of value to a new force taking on a similar task.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not agree. Experience will be no substitute for fitness in operations of the kind I have described, otherwise why have an age limit at all? The older a man becomes, obviously the more experience he accumulates and the more knowledge he has of the local countryside. He could carry on until 75 if that argument were valid.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman realises, I take it, that whether the man is over 55, between 50 and 55, or under 50 he still has to pass the health examination. If he is not the required health standard, it does not matter what his age is—he will be out.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to worry me even more, because he implies that the health standard will be set so low, initially at any rate, as to allow men over 55 to be included in the force during the transitional period. Then the crutches will be thrown away; after a time the health checks will be tightened and the force will be much more efficient.
The Government should get the more efficient force from the very start. We should start as we mean to go on—by having young, fit men in the force who will be fully capable of discharging the onerous duties which are being placed upon them and the high responsibilities which are outlined in the White Paper.

Mr. Howie: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the experienced men to whom the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) referred might have gained their experience by fighting the wrong people over the wrong piece of country and might be out of date?

Mr. Lubbock: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

4.45 a.m.

Miss Devlin: I support the Amendment on a purely practical basis. I agree with what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said. On later Amendments I shall show that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) is being perfectly honest when he speaks of his experience with the Ulster Special Constabulary.
While accepting, as the Under-Secretary said, that this is not an exact analogy with the law in Britain, it is more the rule that men cannot remain in the British Army over the age of 55. While this force remains an integral part of the British Army, there will be a peculiar set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper says:
The lower and upper age limits for services will be 18 and 55, but as a transitional measure persons with previous military or similar suitable service may be recruited or allowed to serve beyond age 55.
The Minister of Defence for Administration said that the regiment will in the first instance be heavily dependent on the Ulster Special Constabulary and that this was the reason for this flexibility of age.
Now the Under-Secretary tells us that this is not true and that this transitional period has nothing to do with the fact that a number of B Specials are over 55, and says that this relates more to officers. I shall deal with this question on later Amendments, but I would ask the Government to look carefully into the record and background of officers before assuming that, simply because they are over 55 and officers in one force, that entitles them to serve in another force——

Mr. Richard: For once, that is an assurance which I can give and which I gladly give.

Miss Devlin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the assurance which he gladly gives. I hope that he will see that it is particularly pointed out that officers in the U.S.C. will have their applications for enrolment in the new force treated on their merits and not on the basis of their standing in the existing force.
In his answer to the hon. Member for Orpington, the Under-Secretary repeated


the peculiar state of affairs which we had on the Police Bill. Every one of his arguments was in favour of the Amendment, yet he said that he could give no assurances, so how can he convince us that the spirit of the Amendment will be implemented if we withdraw it? I asked on the Police Bill to have this explained to me: perhaps the Minister will explain it on this Bill. How can a Minister argue in favour of an Amendment yet refuse any assurances? Either he is prepared to accept the Amendment or he is not. Let him honestly say which. It is as simple as that. Let us stop beating around the bush. If the Minister can give an assurance, let him do so, and then we can move on to the next Amendment.

Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the B Special Constabulary— the Ulster Special Constabulary, as we have known it in Northern Ireland— has been the cause of community discontent in Northern Ireland. We have been promised that the new regiment will be based on British military lines, which is a complete departure from the Ulster Special Constabulary. Hon. Members opposite have argued for the retention of members of the Ulster Special Constabulary who are over 55 on the ground that they have had experience in dealing with subversive organisations over a particular part of the countryside of the six counties and, therefore, they could train recruits.

Mr. Richard: No one—certainly no one from this side of the Committee— said that he wanted to retain people over the age of 55. The argument is whether there should be an automatic disqualification at that age. All I am saying is that age in itself should not be a disqualification.

Mr. Fitt: I was apparently directing my remarks to the Minister instead of to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark).
How long would it take to train a person to guard an installation or a road block? Six months or a year or two years? I have no military experience, but I believe that such training could be carried out in a reasonably short time, particularly if the recruits are ex-Service

men. Recruits could be trained by a member of the British forces stationed in Northern Ireland. There is no valid reason for the retention of these old men of the B Specials.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who, I understand has a close family connection with this organisation, urged that they should all have telephones installed in their homes, that they should have a petrol allowance for their cars and that they should be given medals. I agree about the medals. Let us strike a medal for each and every one of them, say farewell to them and get them out of the force. That would be accepted by the whole community in Northern Ireland. But there is no need for the retention of any of the older members of the Ulster Special Constabulary.

Mr. Henry Clark: Is the hon. Member saying that the new regiment should not have the best communications available?

Mr. Fitt: The new regiment will have the best communications available, but it will owe nothing to the Ulster Special Constabulary in having them. The hon. Member, on occasions both in this House and in Northern Ireland, has expressed great sentimental concern for the Ulster Special Constabulary. He should show his concern now. I should not like to foist on a 55 or 56-year-old man the onerous responsibility of standing at crossroads in County Fermanagh on a wet, wintry night, or when snow was falling. When one is over 30 to 35 one is more susceptible to colds and influenza and lumbago. Asking these men to tramp through the snow in Fermanagh would not be my way of showing respect to them, for they have given loyal service to the State of Northern Ireland. We should get these medals struck as soon as possible. We could ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North what type of medal he has in mind.

Mr. McGuire: A leather medal.

Mr. Fitt: It was once suggested in Northern Ireland that a plaque should be erected to the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Member for East Tyrone, in the Northern Ireland Parliament, suggested that, if this were done, it should be in the form of a donkey which was shot by B Specials in their haste to catch


a non-existent member of a subversive organisation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North told us that, since the inception of the State of Northern Ireland, valiant members of the B Specials had ably met and defeated members of the I.R.A. in their attacks from the border on the constitution of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about it, perhaps he can explain how it is that they were unable to catch those responsible for blowing up water mains and electricity pylons earlier this year. The perpetrators have since been caught by the British military forces. They proved to be members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, an extreme unionist Paisleyite organisation. It seems remarkable that the B Specials, with such a record of success of getting I.R.A. arsonists, should so signally have failed on this occasion when, just by chance, the perpetrators happened to be members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, an extreme right-wing organisation.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take this into consideration when asking for recruits for the new force. If they are to protect the border and the peace of Northern Ireland, their activities should be gauged to get all those engaged in acts of violence on the State of Northern Ireland.
I agree with Lord Hunt when he points out that the possibility of attack from the Republic of Ireland is extremely remote, so my right hon. Friend has no cause to act with haste in setting up the new force. I hope to hear again the undertaking that the force will not have its full complement by April Fool's Day. If there is no possibility of attack in the near future on Northern Ireland, I cannot understand the haste to enlist members of the B Specials who are in their 50s, some of them nearly 60. There is no necessity to enlist men of that age in the regiment.

Mr. John Mendelson: In the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, there was one point which I found disturbing. Perhaps he can elaborate on it a little. I understood him to give, as the main reason for the Secretary of State saying on Second Reading that even men beyond the age of 55 might be kept on and certainly those between 50 and 55 in certain cases, the fact that he needed

senior administrators. If that is the case, then my hon. Friend revealed a disturbing attitude on the part of the Government.
I could not but feel with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in the point he made about the hardships which elderly members of this force might be put to, but I think that he will agree that the really serious element in this argument does not lie there but in the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State, which seems to presuppose that the Government have accepted the argument, put forward at Stormont to my certain knowledge and that of many other hon. Members, that the senior administration will naturally be entirely composed of former officers and commanders in the Ulster Special Constabulary. It is important that the Committee should be told whether this is so before we decide our attitude to the Amendment.

5.0 a.m.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this is some sort of new revelation, but it is all in the White Paper which, on page 4, says:
The battalion commanders will be local members of the force; during its early life these appointments may be filled by present County Commandants of the Ulster Special Constabulary, almost all of whom are ex-officers of the regular forces and who have had much experience in dealing with the tasks for which the new force is designed.

Mr. Mendelson: I am aware of that passage, as is every hon. Member. However, my hon. Friend went beyond that, because, in addition to these commanders mentioned in that passage, there is also to be a central administration of the new regiment, as the hon. and gallant Member, with his military experience, knows. It would be highly dangerous if we were to presuppose that in addition to these officers specifically mentioned part of the central administration was to be taken over by former B Specials.

Mr. Richard: If there is any confusion about this, let me clear it up now. It is certainly not the Government's intention that anything on the lines my hon. Friend suggests should occur. We have said, ad nauseam I would have thought, on Second Reading and today, that this force is to be part of the British Army and run under the direction of the G.O.C. There will be a small Regular staff to


assist the G.O.C. and in addition there will be Regular officers at the level of each battalion. Certainly, nothing I have said tonight was designed to go further than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went on Second Reading.

Mr. Mendelson: But that still does not clear up the essential point whether, under the G.O.C. and perhaps one or two assistants, who will be taken from the Regular British Army, all effective posts of command will automatically go to former officers of the B Specials.

Mr. Maginnis: The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill explains this under the heading, "Effects of the Bill on Public Service Manpower". when it says:
About 100 civilians will be employed for clerical, storekeeping and general duties, and about 50 members of the force will serve as permanent staff, as well as up to 50 attached personnel of the Regular Army.

Mr. Mendelson: But the essential point with which we are concerned is recruitment. That has been the red line running through all these debates. We have received very reasonable assurances from the Government during previous debates, but if those assurances are to be meaningful, members of the minority must be encouraged to join the force so that it is well balanced.
Those members of the minority who have not yet made up their minds about joining the force will be profoundly affected if they see all the decisive positions below the G.O.C. and a small staff of Regular officers of the British Army going to the same commanding officers of the former B Specials. That is common sense, not the kind of propagandist argument that we have across the Floor of the Committee.
I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter again and not commit the Government to allowing all these senior positions automatically to be taken up by former officers of the B Specials.

Mr. Richard: I thought that I had committed the Government in a direction exactly opposite to that to which the hon. Gentleman warns me not to commit the Government. In other words, I have given assurances that my hon. Friend's fears are groundless. What more can he expect the Government to do?

Mr. Mendelson: I am glad to have that assurance, but in that case I do not see how my hon. Friend's argument against the Amendment stands up. In view of that assurance, for what does he need these elderly gentlemen if he does not need them for the central administrative positions?

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman know—and this may be very relevant to the questions he is asking—how many of the present county commandants of the U.S.C. who during the early life of the new force may be appointed as battalion commanders are over 55? If we knew the answer to this would it not give some indication why the Government are insisting on this temporary provision?

Mr. Mendelson: This may well be so. I hope that my hon. Friend will give a brief comprehensive reply in which he will respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.
This is a very serious matter. It would be harmful if any impression gained widespread acceptance among members of the minority in Northern Ireland that one reason for keeping the higher age limit is that automatically the vast majority of the administrative officers and senior commanders would be appointed. That is now contradicted by my hon. Friend's assurance. Anyone who has recently been to Northern Ireland will agree with me that any such suspicion would be actively hostile against the widest possible recruiting basis for the new force, which the Government say they require.

Mr. Howie: As I understand the White Paper, it said that during the early life of the battalions these appointments may be filled by present members of the Ulster Special Constabulary. I would have thought that the argument we have just heard was based on the notion that they shall be so filled. Am I in error? Is it "may" or "shall"?

Mr. Mendelson: I know very well that the word "may" is used, but I also know—and this is why I spent some time on this point—that in the circles now administering the B Specials in Northern Ireland the attitude is to say to the members, "You have nothing to worry about. We shall be the officers in command. Things will continue much as they


have been before." That is why it is essential that we should get further clarification from the Government that "may" really means may and not shall.

Mr. Mikardo: The Committee will be relieved to learn that I rise at this advanced hour not to make a speech, but merely to ask a question. To explain the background I should say that, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested in his last intervention, the difference between the supporters of the Amendment and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is not qualitative but quantitative.
As I understand my hon. Friend, what he really says is that he entirely agrees with the ideas behind the Amendment, and that the Government, too, do not want a lot of old men administering the force. I must say that subjectively I winced when a couple of my hon. Friends described everybody over 55 as old gentlemen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the first time I have been cheered in this Chamber in 20 years. My hon. Friend says that he agrees with us that he does not want it administered by old gentlemen, that he does not want an assumption that an administrative officer of the B Specials will automatically get the same sort of job. But I understand that he is saying that in the early stages of formation if we had this blanket exclusion we might be hard up to find a few men for a few special jobs.
This is a question of quantity, and my hon. Friend has the advantage of information that we do not possess. Could he give us some sort of breakdown into age groups of the people at the various levels in the B Specials? I appreciate that he may not have that stuck on the end of his cuff, and may want to treat this as notice of a question rather than a question. If he regarded it in that light, I would not object. But if we are to make up our minds about the proposition he has put before us, that this is a marginal necessity for a short period and so on, we must be satisfied that the numbers are such that he cannot do without the provision. I would want to see some figures before I, for one, would be satisfied.
It might be said that I am being unduly suspicious in not taking my hon. Friend's word at its face value, but I have sat

through many nights like this, moving and supporting Amendments, and hearing spokesmen for the Government say, "We entirely accept the principle behind the Amendment." Every time I hear that, my nostrils twitch with an odour reminiscent and redolent of a rodent. I smell a rat, because they always finish up by saying, "Nevertheless, we are not accepting it."
I am suspicious about it and I want some evidence—I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my asking for it —that the numbers of people available are such that it is impossible to do without some of the present officers who are getting on a bit in years—I put it rather more charitably than my hon. Friends— and that for that reason my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment. Can we, please, have some quantitative evidence on this point?

Mr. McGuire: I, too, share the suspicions which have been voiced in this debate. When my hon. Friend the Minister has replied to clarify many of the points raised during the speeches of my hon. Friends, he has confused things a wee bit more for me.
I refer my hon. Friend to the debate on 19th November. This was what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:
As my hon. Friend has informed the House, initially it will be necessary to draw substantially on the U.S.C.
In the Committee debate so far my hon. Friend has said that no Member of the House of Commons, and certainly no member of the B Specials, must believe that there would be a substantial transfer. He said that some would transfer for the reason of maintaining continuity in establishing the new force on a sound, efficient basis.
My right hon. Friend went on to say, on 19th November:
… as nearly 60 per cent, of the officers of the U.S.C. are over 50 and almost 40 per cent, are over 55 years old, we think that it is prudent as a transitional measure to be prepared to make a certain number of exceptions to the normal age limit of 55."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 1337.]
I have listened to all the debate and I sat through Second Reading without being called—and this is the first time I have been called tonight, although I have risen many times. If I may be


jocular for a moment, I am trying to slim but I did not think I had been that successful. Apparently, the occupants of the Chair cannot see me, although I have managed to catch your eye now, Sir Robert.
I am convinced that the Northern Ireland Government have been able to get from my right hon. Friends an important concession. In a way, the Bill has been introduced to create what is known as the balanced community principle and we will not have, as previously we have had, a wholly sectarian force. To create the right impression in the minds of the minority, it is necessary to say that the force will get off on the right foot. If substantial concessions are made to the people who are already operating the levers of power in the Special Constabulary, and take only a few into the senior commanding positions, they will establish a code and set the tone. It is all part and parcel of the attempt to create in the minds of the minority the idea that they are not wanted and that there is an unwillingness to have them.
5.15 a.m.
I do not see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) present. I have never known an hon. Member who could stand so much punishment. I wish that he were a heavyweight. If he had been we would not have lost the heavyweight championship. He said that a force of 6,000 was not enough and suggested that age should be no barrier, nor education or medical fitness. I am reminded of the story about an occasion during the war when a man came before a selection board sitting in a wheel chair. He thought that he would get away with it, but the officer in charge said that he was wanted and added "Oil his wheels. He's A1."
I think that a deal has been done. I want my hon. Friend to clear up the point about an allowance being made for men over 50 or 55, for on Second Reading it was categorically stated that there would be a substantial transfer. I think that a shabby deal has been done which will make a laughing stock of the whole idea of a modern efficient defence unit which, we were told, would be modelled more on the lines of the British Army than in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance

that the words spoken on Second Reading have been misquoted, or we will have to oppose the Government on this Amendment.

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) asked for certain assurances. I have made inquiries and those assurances are not at present available. I undertake, however to make available to my hon. Friend as soon as possible the information that we have. That, I am afraid, will not help him in deciding whether to support this Amendment or not. It should be said that membership of the Ulster Special Constabulary will not in itself be a disqualification for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment. A tendency seemed to be creeping into some speeches which did not go wholly in that direction, but perhaps that ought to be said.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading represents the position of the Government. My right hon. Friend said that we think it:
prudent as a transitional measure to be prepared to make a certain number of exceptions to the normal age limit of 55. To a lesser degree, the same applies to senior N.C.O.s.
My hon. Friend also said:
This transitional arrangement will permit the enlistment of experienced men who can contribute much to the success of the new force in its formative days and until younger men can be trained to the appropriate standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Orme), perhaps not inappropriately, or unexpectedly, said:
We will have to vote against this.
The Secretary of State went on:
The arrangements will also allow present county commandants of the U.S.C. to be considered for appointment as full time battalion commanders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1969; Vol. 791, c. 1337.]
That remains the position of the Government.

Mr. McGuire: "Substantially."

Mr. Richard: I merely ask my hon. Friends to view that statement of what is seen as a military and administrative need in the early days of this force against the general background of recruiting as revealed in the assurances


already given to the Committee today and at earlier stages of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks, but they did not represent the assurances for which we asked. In view of the powerful points made by my hon. Friends, and particularly

5.30 a.m.

Miss Devlin: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force:

(a) to carry out duties in connection with an industrial dispute
(b) to engage in crowd control or not duties
(c) to carry out search of privately owned land or houses
(d) to arrest or apprehend persons other than persons detected in actual commission of a criminal offence

by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 110.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[5.20 a.m.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Lee, John (Reading)
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Pavitt, Laurence


Bidwell, Sydney
McGuire, Michael
Ryan, John


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
McNamara, J. Kevin



Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Eric S. Heffer and


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Russell Kerr.


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pounder, Rafton


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, Henry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Conlan, Bernard
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Emest (Stretford)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Speed, Keith


Dell, Edmund
MacColl, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dobson, Ray
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, E.
Maginnis, John E.
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Whitaker, Ben


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Mrs. Eirene


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannan, William
More, Jasper
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. William Handing.

(e) to exercise any of the powers otherwise capable of delegation to military personnel under the provisions of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts, 1922 and 1923
(f)to engage in traffic direction or control'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee to take Amendment No. 21, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force to carry out duties in connection with an industrial dispute'.


Amendment No. 22, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force to engage in crowd control or not duties'.
Amendment No. 23, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force to carry out search of privately owned land or houses'.
Amendment No. 24, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force to arrest or apprehend persons other than persons detected in actual commission of a criminal offence'.
Amendment No. 25, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
or empower members of the force to exercise any of the powers otherwise capable of delegation to military personnel under the provisions of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 and 1923'.
and Amendment No. 26, in line 34, leave out from 'members' to end of line 39 and insert:
'or empower members of the force to engage in traffic direction or control'

Miss Devlin: This is an important Amendment and I hope that the Committee will not feel that I am obstructing the business if I go into some detail.
The present wording of the Amendment is taken directly from Section l(4)(c) of the Home Guard Act, 1951, which applies to Northern Ireland. The Government have given no reason why the provisions in that Act have not been incorporated into this Bill. The more obvious sectarian activities of the B Specials, the terrorism of Catholics out of their homes, the breaking up of civil rights marches, and other well-publicised details, have received notable publicity but have overshadowed other vital functions of the force in Northern Ireland. At various times it has been involved in labour disputes and has played and active and reactionary réle in suppressing, either by open violence or the threat of violence, any challenge to the dominance of capital.
Northern Ireland is the most economically depressed area in the so-called United Kingdom. Naturally, considerable

discontent arises from this fact. In the normal course of events such discontent might have been expected to manifest itself in the growth of mass radical movements, even in the development of a mass-based Labour Party able to challenge the whole Tory structure of the area. This has not happened. Part of the reason is provided by the role and function of the Ulster Special Constabulary, which, of necessity, will form a substantial basis for the new regiment.
The reason that it has not happened has been mainly due to the Unionist Party bringing about political polarisation along a religious rather than a class axis and thus ensuring that the discontented workers of Northern Ireland instinctively turn against their fellow-workers rather than against the root cause of their problems. This is crucial to any understanding of why the ruling clique of the Tory Party has managed to keep itself in continuous power for half a century, despite its lamentable inability to solve the economic problems of that area—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] What I am saying is in order, despite the calls by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I am pointing out the reasons that the Amendment should be made since it would specifically prevent the new force from indulging in the activities of the original force in interfering in industrial disputes.

Mr. Henry Clark: On a point of order. Is somebody in the Committee whistling?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that any hon. Member is doing anything he should not be doing. The microphones are perhaps not quite feeling as fresh as we are.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Several hon. Members feel that one microphone on this side and possibly one on the other side are the culprits.

The Temporary Chairman: I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to have inquiries made.

Miss Devlin: To support the argument that I have put forward, I should like to quote from the National Council for Civil Liberties document on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland. This Act has been carried out constantly


by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary. In page 33 it points out in a particular paragraph where the Special Powers Act has been used by members of the R.U.C. and the U.S.C. to prevent industrial action being taken. I will not delay the Committee by reading out the entire paragraph at this stage. If necessary, I will use it at a later stage of my argument to substantiate what I have said.
It is significant, for example, that in past times, when large-scale redundancies were threatened in the Belfast shipyard, the slogan "Sack the Catholics first" has always been successful in heading off any attempt to unite the work force in its own interests. In such circumstances the Special Constabulary has been necessary to make the threat of sectarian terror credible.
Hon. Members representing British constituencies may find it difficult to envisage a situation where, in a factory or other workplace, there are men who, in their leisure time, are members of an armed body and who, seeing any challenge to the status quo as a threat to the existence of the State, conceive it their duty to take up arms to suppress such imagined threats. But in Northern Ireland this is no fanciful idea.
During the depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s, although in Northern Ireland depression is at any time a relative term, the B Specials were used to suppress by force—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Lady is doing rather more than refreshing her memory from copious notes, which is as far as the Chair is permitted to allow Members to go with reading a speech.

Miss Devlin: With due respect, the reason that I am using notes copiously is because I am trying to base my argument not on my opinions, which hon. Members take on occasion as being extreme or biased, but on quotations of facts. It is rather much to ask, at this hour of the morning, that I should memorise the quotations.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry, but the rules of the House take no account of the hour of the morning. The

rule is that speeches must not be read, so I must ask the hon. Lady to pay attention to it.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. It is clear to me that my hon. Friend is not reading her speech. She is merely using notes in the same way that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench put a pile of notes on the Dispatch Box when they make speeches—[Interruption.] If not on this occasion, they make regular speeches from notes, and sometimes I think that they actually read their speeches.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Further to that point of order. May I direct your attention, Sir Robert, to a similar point of order which arose on Friday in the debate on overseas aid, when the Parliamentary Secretary was in a similar position and Mr. Speaker ruled that copious notes could be quickly used.

The Temporary Chairman: I was about to say virtually the same. There is a custom of the House that a Minister speaking officially from the Box is granted some latitude. But it is definitely the rule of the House that other hon. Members must not read their speeches. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was of opinion that the hon. Lady was not reading her speech, but I thought that she admitted to me that she was. In any case, I am sure that she will do her best to obey the rules of the House.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. I did not say that I was reading my speech, which I was not. I was merely clarifying, for the benefit of the Chair, that, on the occasions when the Chair might have noticed me reading, I was reading a quotation. On other occasions I have made reference to and selected what was relevant from copious notes in my possession, which it is my intention to use throughout the debate. I do not think that this is reading. I think that hon. Members will agree that when I am referring to notes I take up less time than otherwise.

The Temporary Chairman: I accept what the hon. Lady says. She assures me that she is not reading her speech, and I accept that.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Mr. Stratton Mills rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Unless the hon. Member wishes to raise a further point of order, there seems to be no point on going on with it.

Mr. Stratton Mills: It has been obvious throughout the debate that the hon. Lady has been reading speeches prepared by Mr. Bowes Egan. Would it not be convenient for the Committee if that practice were to continue, so that we can get the benefit of the opinion of Mr. Bowes Egan on each of the Amendments?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. The hon. Lady has assured me that she is not reading her speech. I accept that, and I think that we can now proceed with the debate.

Miss Devlin: In reference to the hon. Gentleman's comment�ž�ž

The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is no call to refer to the hon. Gentleman's interjection, because I have ruled it out of order.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Sir Robert. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Sir Robert, will you please once again direct the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to shut up?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the Committee can safely leave the conduct of affairs to me.

Miss Devlin: It does not worry me in the least that the debate is held up.
I was saying that during the depression in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties members of the U.S.C. played an active part in the forceful suppression of any attempt by the workers in Belfast to form any kind of working-class unity to improve their conditions. Public meetings called by trade unions were prohibited by the Minister for Home Affairs, under the Special Powers Act, and the U.S.C. was used to deter workers from collecting in groups in any district. Marches, protests to local councils, and indoor meetings were similarly prohibited under the Special Powers Act, and the ban was enforced by the U.S.C.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that that happened only in the 'twenties

and early 'thirties. I can tell them that in factories in Belfast during August and September of this year a slightly different but equally ugly phenomenon occurred. Posters were displayed warning Catholics to abandon their work. Catholics working in those factories were not inclined to take such warnings lightly. Many hon. Members will be aware of what happened in the Belfast shipyards over the years when employment was more scarce than it is now. Catholic workers ignoring such notices were most often to be found burned at the bottom of the docks. Nothing was done to prevent that. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the face is bitter is it because the tale is more bitter.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that my trade union expelled nearly half of its members in branches in Northern Ireland precisely because some members conducted religious discrimination? I am proud of what my union did. I make the point only because I am sick and tired of listening to some of the stuff that is being said by hon. Gentlemen opposite while they are seated. My hon. Friend is being accused of rabble rousing, but I know that what she is saying is true, because of my union's record in Northern Ireland.

Miss Devlin: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention, and I hope to elaborate his point about the action that can be taken by trade unions in this country and by those in Northern Ireland because of the laws of Northern Ireland and the body that is used to enforce them.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

5.45 a.m.

Hon. Members may remember the May Day procession that took place in this country on 1st May. This procession was against the proposed anti-union legislation which was to go through the House. But how many hon. Members are aware that under Northern Ireland law such a march would be illegal in Northern Ireland?

An Hon. Member: Rubbish.

Miss Devlin: It is not rubbish. Certain laws relating to this factor which were repealed in Great Britain by the Labour Government of Clement Attlee in


1946 are still in force in Northern Ireland. Under the Trades Unions (Northern Ireland) Act, 1927, it is still illegal to go on strike for any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute. A strike is illegal if it is designed or calculated to coerce the Government either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.
Hon. Members may ask what this has to do with the B Specials. It has everything to do with them, because in the past the B Specials have been used to prevent the formation of any trade activity or union activity. We have been told repeatedly by the Government Front Bench that the Ulster Special Constabulary will form a substantial part of the new force, but since these men have a long period of tradition and conditioned thinking it must be made clear to them that it will in no way be their function to engage in this kind of activity in the future.
Hon. Members should well understand if I do not accept assurances from the Front Bench on this point. The Government can with good faith give an assurance that the new Ulster Defence Regiment will not be used in any trade dispute. I ask the Minister to consider the horrific possibility at some time in the future, of the Government benches being filled by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend is trying to frighten us.

Miss Devlin: Just imagine such a situation. Where would be the assurances in regard to the workers of Northern Ireland? Where would be the assurance that the Ulster Defence Regiment would not—as the old B Specials have done— interfere with the right of the working class to strike and get a better deal for themselves, and generally improve their conditions? We would have no such assurances from such a Government. Therefore, because the law will stand for much longer than any Government, it is necessary that from the outset there should be written into this Bill the provision that the Ulster Defence Regiment and its members will not be empowered to become involved in any action with regard to an industrial dispute.
Hon. Members may think that I am stressing a rather small point. I put

forward one further possibility, which might be even more horrific. Hon. Members may say that I am trying to frighten them, but imagine the Conservative and Unionist Party in power and the Prime Minister of that party having as his Secretary of State for Defence a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. It might be thought that nobody would be so ridiculous—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may find that amusing, but a party which, in the past, had the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) as a Parliamentary Private Secretary is, in future, capable of any folly.
Therefore, I put to hon. Members the hypothetical situation of not only a Conservative and Unionist Party as the Government of this country, but of a member of the Ulster Unionist Party as Secretary of State for Defence, with complete control of the 6,000 men who form the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) may well make grimaces. I am not totally unaware of the fact that my presence in this House has discredited his party and lessened his chances of having such a post, should there be a Conservative Government.
I will not deal much further with paragraph (a) of my Amendment, but I will come back to it later. I will move on to another important point, in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, that members of this force be not empowered—

Mr. Stratton Mills: The Committee would have been very grateful if the hon. Lady had asked Mr. Bowes Egan to abbreviate her speech.

Miss Devlin: I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the services of Mr. Bowes Egan are at their disposal any day. I assure the Committee that I am in no hurry. I consider these Amendments to be important, but if hon. Members think it amusing to continue to obstruct my proposal of them I am quite capable and willing to remain here discussing them until we interfere with tomorrow's business.
If I may continue with paragraph (b) of this Amendment, this is particularly important, because the Government have made it clear their intention—in a very weak fashion—that the Ulster Defence


Regiment will not be used for crowd control. They have stated that it is not the intention of the Government to use the Ulster Defence Regiment for crowd control. This is a very weak statement, particularly on a matter as important as whether or not this particular force will be used for such a function. Time and time again the Cameron Report refers to the role played by the Ulster Special Constabulary in situations where peaceful demonstrators were attacked. We learn how the Rev. John Brown, District Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary in Londonderry, refused to meet the Commission, and at a later point, in paragraph 100, a hint is given why he may have proved reticent. He was prominent among a group of people standing on an area of raised ground who were throwing stones and bottles at a passing file of peaceful demonstrators.
This is only one example of how rank and file members of the Ulster Special Constabulary have been subject to the example of senior officers like the Rev. John Brown, and hon. Members would do well to consider the fact that I am talking about senior officers for whom it has been found necessary to make an age requirement.
Officers of the calibre of Mr. Brown have not contributed very much to changing the ideas of the force of B Specials. They have not been particularly noticeable in restraining rank and file members from exercising any function other than that of deliberately harassing people who have a legal right to be where they are.
In view of facts like these concerning not only rank and file members, but also senior officers, something much stronger than an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to use these people for crowd control is necessary. Paragraph 5 of the White Paper states that it is not the Government's intention to do so, but I hope that either the Minister of Defence or the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a much stronger assurance. The only assurance I shall be able to accept is the Government's acceptance of the Amendment.
If it is the Government's intention to ensure that this does not happen, the

best way to do so is to write it into the Bill—by accepting the Amendment—so that, in the unlikely event of the Conservative and Unionist Party succeeding this Government at the next General Election the work done by this Government cannot be immediately undone.
Time and time again we have been given assurances by the Northern Ireland Government that the Special Constabulary will not engage in savagery. Until the present time the Government of the North of Ireland still insist that members of the Special Constabulary have not committed any atrocities. I want to outline why I shall not be satisfied with an assurance that regulations will be made, nor with the terms of the limitations set out in the White Paper.
During the first few days of January, 1969, I myself was one of a number of people in the civil rights march that passed through rural and urban areas of the North of Ireland. At various points we met hostile receptions from crowds organised by leading members of the Special Constabulary. I am trying to align the members of the Special Constabulary with the whole political system in Northern Ireland and explain my belief that there is nobody to be trusted. Among members of the Special Constabulary subsequently identified there was a very familiar face in one of the crowds at one particular point known as McVay's Corner. That was the face of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clerk) and that of his brother, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. We are not referring to Members of Parliament in this instance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the hon. Gentleman doing there?"] I believe that he was exercising his parliamentary duty over his constituents.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Slinging bottles about?

Miss Devlin: It must be pointed out that the hon. Gentleman was looking on. None the less, we are not at this point dealing with hon. Members whose parliamentary behaviour is undoubtedly beyond any kind of slighting. We are dealing with members of the Ulster Special Constabulary. These men and their rank and file followers engaged in the planning of an ambush and the carrying out of a


savage wholesale assault at Burntollet Bridge.
This raises two matters with regard to Government assurances and the extent of these. First, from the outset of the demonstration the Government of the North of Ireland openly requested all those opposed to the march to restrain themselves from openly harassing or attacking the march. So much for Government assurances. The march took place. The attack at Burntollet took place. Government assurances were of no avail, because it was not in the minds of the ordinary people concerned to pay any attention to Government assurances. The Government had no existing power to prevent those people from assembling with the weapons they had assembled with.
Secondly, I draw the attention to the Committee to Chapter 9 of the Cameron Report and to the contents of the booklet "Burntollet", the sole work of Mr. Bowes Egan and which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) will find very interesting if the works of Bowes Egan attract him. It is full of very interesting facts, facts which have been borne out, facts which have never been denied by any of those mentioned in the book or by the Minister of Home Affairs in Nrothern Ireland. The facts show that most of the people involved in the organisation and carrying out of this attack were members of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
6.0 a.m.
My second objection to the White Paper is that many of these incidents took place in rural areas, precisely where the White Paper envisages the Ulster Defence Regiment being most active in establishing road blocks and searching vehicles. If the proposed regiment contains the kind of membership whom we all expect, the presence of these people in positions of authority along a rural route of protest would be good reason for the gravest apprehension among the participants. In this instance, assurances in good faith from a Minister have no reference to reality unless written into the Bill, so that those who do not carry out the law can be treated accordingly.
My third point concerns urban workers. I have described the activities

of the Ulster Special Constabulary when called upon to deal with industrial agitation, in circumstances in which, acting in accordance with their own training, they have spontaneously moved to oppose demonstrations of the deprived and unemployed. This was spontaneous— they were not called out or called up.
It is common ground that, in the 'twenties and' thirties, the activities of the Specials in Belfast played a large part in preventing the growth of a labour organisation in Northern Ireland and in polarising the attitudes of the religious communities. Therefore, it is very important that they are not allowed, under any circumstances, even to be under the impression that they may continue in a new force in the manner in which they behaved in the old force.
I could give further examples of the involvement of the Special Constabulary in not circumstances. No hon. Member should argue that this is irrelevant. Most of these incidents resulted in fatalities caused by the Ulster Special Constabulary. They show the necessity of writing into the Bill a rigid prohibition of any involvement by the U.S.C. in crowd control or any ancillary duties—and, I would say, of any contact with the general public.
But, first, let me point out again how the very existence of the regiment is likely to cause trouble. After reading the Cameron and Hunt Reports, the Government produced a White Paper in which they suggested, by implication, that the Ulster Defence Regiment would be maintained and retained to man road blocks and carry out searches and the like, and to be in a key position with regard to the participants in rural demonstrations. The Secretary of State proposes to create a crazy situation in which, given an episode like Burntoilet, the attackers would have come from among their members patrolling the area on the pretence of setting up road blocks and searching vehicles. Members taking part in the attack would have their vehicles searched by the Ulster Defence Regiment whose function would be to make sure, as was done at Burntollet, that the attackers were well enough armed.
The Minister will excuse me if I feel cynical about assurances in this regard, as one who has suffered at the hands of


the Ulster Special Constabulary in their dealings with crowd control. In Belfast, the passing of the Government of Ireland Act was accompanied by widespread civil disturbances. In November, 1920, the recruiting of the special constables began. The setting up of this new police force invited widespread adverse comment.
The Daily Mail declared that it was the most outrageous thing that had been done. I quote from the Daily Mail, and I will show how relevant it is to the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. The Daily Mail wrote at that time:
These are the very people who have been looting Catholic shops and driving thousands of Catholic women and children from their homes
That quotation is from the Daily Mail of November, 1920. That may seem a long time ago, but I ask the Minister to think closely of the exact words of that quotation:
These are the very people who have been looting Catholic shops and driving thousands of Catholic women and children from their homes".
That quotation could just as easily have been of the Ulster Special Constabulary, Belfast, August, 1969, as of Belfast, November, 1920. I put the same quotation to the Minister with reference to the Defence Regiment: these are the people he will have in it. By his own admission the Minister has agreed that in the beginning the members of the regiment will naturally come substantially from the Ulster Special Constabulary.
I am giving the Minister a description of the Ulster Special Constabulary of November, 1920. I have quoted the description, and I think that most hon. Members will agree that it still applies to the Ulster Special Constabulary of August, 1969. We have the same mentality and the same men in the force. Unless we face up to that fact, and unless the Government face up to that fact and recognise, for their own sake, that they cannot give assurances, because while they can vouch for their own good faith they cannot basically control a force the majority of whose members disagree with the Government's assurances, the situation will not be satisfactory.
I want to make one more quotation— from Andrew Boyd's "Holy War in Belfast":

The Specials were former members of the Ulster Volunteers and mobsters recruited from the streets. Indeed, when it was proposed at Westminster to form these men into a Special Constabulary, amazement was expressed".
That quotation, too, is relevant today. One might say, in reference to the new force, "The Defence Regiment were former members of the Ulster Special Constabulary and mobsters recruited from the streets. Indeed, when it was proposed at Westminster to form these men into a regiment amazement was expressed."
I am trying to point out to the Minister that over the years from 1920 until now, over 50 years, nothing has changed the basic mentality of these people. Therefore, no assurance of his will do. There must be written into the Bill specific proposals which make it perfectly clear for those of us in the House, and particularly for people who may join the Ulster Defence Regiment, exactly what the functions of that regiment will be. Stating clearly in a Section of the Act what will be the limitations on the powers of the regiment is the only way to get a balance in the force. If we state clearly what the functions of the force will be and what the limitations on those functions will be, it will not matter what religion or what politics any man joining the force professes, because it will be crystal clear what he can and what he cannot do. What he thinks he would like to do, therefore, becomes irrelevant.
But when we have only an assurance from the Minister, that man can do what he thinks he has a right to do. If we no longer had a Labour Government, we feel almost sure, a subsequent Government would allow the man that latitude to do what he thinks he ought to do, as the Unionist Government have done in the case of the Ulster Special Constabulary.

Mr. Lubbock: Not under a Liberal Government either.

Miss Devlin: There might even be a Liberal Government at some time. I apologise to the hon. Member for not having thought of that. If we had a Liberal Government I hope that that situation would not arise.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is not fully aware of how law and order, crowd control and the maintenance of the peace in Northern


Ireland are handled by the U.S.C. I will show him how the B Specials control crowds. I have here an object belonging to a gentleman called Mr. Kenneth Moore, living in Irwin Crescent, Claudy. He is a constituent of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark).
At Burntollet Bridge this gentleman in his own way enforced the law. He was a member of the U.S.C. If you will bear with me, Mr. Irving, I will show this object to the Committee. It has been shown to the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs. I carried it in this paper bag lest a policeman in London arrested me for carrying an offensive weapon.

The Chairman: Order.

Miss Devlin: Hon. Members have seen it now.

The Chairman: Order. The usages of the House of Commons clearly prohibit bringing a weapon into the Chamber. I understand why the hon. Lady wished to bring it in, but I hope she will now allow one of her hon. Friends to take it away.

Miss Devlin: I would like someone to take it away, Mr. Irving, but I ask whoever takes it away to keep it safely for me until after the debate, because it gives me a kind of homely feeling. Hon. Members may now have some appreciation of the symbol of law and order and crowd control in Northern Ireland.
That weapon was used by no common hooligan. I repeat that it was used by Mr. Kenneth Moore, of Irwin Crescent, Claudy, who thought that he was carrying out his duties as a member of the U.S.C. If this gentleman were a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and was called out on military duty, he would, I presume, behave as a soldier, but if he was not called out and the circumstances were the same as at Burntollet Bridge—no one officially called up the U.S.C. then, but members of it thought it their duty to be there—this same gentleman would undoubtedly take the same sort of action. It must, therefore, be carefully stated in the Bill that this kind of activity by members of the regiment will not be tolerated.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the role played by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry

Clark) on Easter Sunday, 1957. I use this again as an illustration to point out the whole political tie-up between the Ulster Unionist Party and the U.S.C, which the Ministry of Defence hopes to use initially as a basis for the new force.
6.15 a.m.
The hon. Member looks puzzled; I will explain the reference. During the months before Easter Sunday 1957, numerous people from the Maghera area had been arrested. It will be understood that this was the time of the 1950s, the time of the beginning of what was known as the terrorist campaign of the I.R.A. During the months before, numerous people from Maghera had been rounded up, arrested and put in gaol without trial and had remained there interned in a gaol for criminals. It was planned to hold a protest demonstration outside the barracks in Maghera. I should like to quote a passage which described the hon. Member's actions on this occasion:
It was always easy on these occasions when there was a chance of action to get extra help and Henry Clark, later M.P. for North Antrim, joined us. He was home on leave from Africa and, armed with a pick-shaft and wearing his green bush hat, looked like Sanders of the River. We got into position with stealth and lay there in great expectation"—
apparently for the protestors coming into the town of Maghera. The narrator is Wallace Clark and the quotation comes from "Guns in Ulster". The list of acknowledgements in the book includes
My brother Henry, who contributed much of the political background.

Mr. Henry Clark: Has the hon. Lady finished her story?

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member has finished that story.

Mr. Clark: It was rather a good story, but the hon. Lady told it rather inaccurately. We were not waiting for a political demonstration, and the hon. Lady must be well aware of it. It was in Easter 1958, towards the end of the I.R.A. terrorist campaign. There were not many political demonstrations in Maghera.
We were waiting because information had been received that there was to be an attack on Maghera police barracks and a party of people were hoping to ambush the I.R.A. which had a machine gun. I do not think that I was overarmed, but


it was not a pick shaft but something very much shorter. I was carrying no more than the normal common law rights of an individual allow when he is trying to maintain the peace.
The hon. Lady can make a good story of it if she wants. If she likes, she can make an even better story. As we lay beneath the hedge waiting for the I.R.A. to come, a drunken man, who had wandered out of Maghera and who was quite unaware that we were sitting in the hedge, unfortunately relieved himself very near to my right hand.
If the hon. Lady is trying to make political capital by saying that we were waiting to beat up peaceful little demonstrators like herself, she is talking nonsense.

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will now return to the Amendment which is concerned with the powers of the new regiment.

Miss Devlin: The hon. Member's intervention was amusing. I shall not say much about it. In fairness, he should point out that there was no attack and that a very disillusioned Sanders dragged himself back to Africa without having caught anything, except possibly a chill.
Hon. Members will be aware that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is among the most liberal of Unionist M.P.s. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are joking."] It must be accepted that his position in his constituency is in danger because of his liberal position. I was using that amusing little story merely to illustrate that, even with the liberal Member, there is no difference in the political situation of the Ulster Unionist Party and the role that is necessarily imposed upon the Ulster Special Constabulary.

Mr. Henry Clark: With due respect to the hon. Lady, what connection is she suggesting I had with the Unionist Party in Easter, 1958?

An Hon. Member: Under a hedge.

The Chairman: Order. The Committee is discussing the Amendment, not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark).

Miss Devlin: I was trying to point out the necessity for the Defence Department

to understand that one cannot isolate members of the Ulster Special Constabulary from the ideal for which the U.S.C. was created and the traditional functions it has carried out, those being the protection of the interests of the Ulster Unionist Party, and that the only way effectively to use the individual members of the U.S.C. in any kind of new force is to make it clear through legislation that the new force bears no similarity to the old.
This can be done and made clear only by the introduction of the Clause I propose, which would lay down the powers and limitations of the powers of the new regiment. Unlike the U.S.C, the regiment must by legislation be prevented from participation in crowd control.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider introducing such a change. The Hunt Report stated clearly the necessity to separate the military and the civil role in Northern Ireland. Steps have been taken to ensure a civil role for the police, but it is therefore necessary that we do away with the old tradition of the paramilitary B Specials assuming police functions. We must make sure that the Ulster Defence Regiment and its members do not labour under the impression that they can, officially or otherwise, do the same. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider an Amendment which would limit the powers of the regiment and prevent it from engaging in crowd control.
We come to yet one more power. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would prefer to tell jokes across the Chamber, I have no objection. The third part of my Amendment deals with the search of private property. From here on all the Amendments embody a much more serious consideration, because the powers given to the�ž—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is deploying the same arguments, that B Specials are unsuited for this role, on each section of her Amendment. There must come a point when I must stop her doing this, because it would be either repetitious or irrelevant, or both.

Miss Devlin: I am grateful for that information, Mr. Irving.
I have come to the point of my Amendments where I am changing my


argument, because we come to very serious difficulties in the Clauses I am now putting before the Committee. We come to the whole question of the much-debated Special Powers Act.
The Ulster Special Constabulary has, in the past, been able to search private property under the Special Powers Act. If that power of searching private property without warrant is to be given to the Ulster Defence Regiment, one must assume that it would be on the same basis as the Regular British Army has that power at present under the Special Powers Act.
Hon. Members have been well aware of opinions expressed in the House about the Special Powers Act. I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to consider what he is doing by creating a body of 6,000 men and why the Government, who argue their abhorrence of the Special Powers Act, are creating a force which has, by its natural traditions in Northern Ireland, the right to use the Special Powers Act. Because it is under the direct rule of Westminster, because it is an integral part of the British Army, will it, in fact, use the Special Powers Act?
I will try to illustrate once again the methods of searching private property carried on in Northern Ireland in the past and I will try to show that the only way that the Ulster Defence Regiment can effectively be prevented from carrying out the same function is, again, by amendment of the Bill. The National Council for Civil Liberties, in 1936—which, I agree, was some time ago—made a report on the use of the Special Powers Act. With specific reference to the searching of private property, it had this to say:
The method of 'rounding-up' practised in Northern Ireland under Special Powers does not greatly differ from similar practices carried out in countries under Fascist rule. Late at night or early in the hours of the morning, armed police in protected lorries swoop upon a selected district and there proceed to enter and search houses without a warrant, rousing the inhabitants of the area and frequently accompanying their search with brutality and damage to property. At the same time the occupants of the houses are interrogated and, if their replies fail to satisfy, are hauled off to police barracks for further questioning.
Usually such searches, said to be 'for arms', and interrogations are equally barren of results. But often the objective of the raid is not to search for arms but to collect 'suspects'. On such occasions, as many as 50 and more men and youths have been

carried off in lorries, without warrant, for detention at the pleasure of the Civil Authority, for a longer or shorter period. Most often these men are released, never having been charged and without reason, apology or excuse.
I accept that that refers to a period many years ago, but if the Minister will investigate the position in the 1950s and the 1960s and the situation in August 1969, he will find that people were rounded up and taken to the Crumlin prison, the sole reason being that they were known to oppose the Northern Ireland constitution. Very little evidence—in fact, no evidence—was given that any of them faintly opposed it�ž—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is going outside the scope of the Amendment, which concerns what will happen in the future and not making an investigation into the past.

Miss Devlin: We respect, Mr. Irving, I think it is necessary to mention the past by way of illustration, because I am trying to point out to the Minister that, despite the fact that he may be willing to given assurances, it is a much more difficult matter to change the pattern of what these men as a body have traditionally been accustomed to carry out.
We have been informed, and most of us have accepted the fact, that in the initial stages the Ulster Defence Regiment will be made up by the Ulster Special Constabulary on the basis that they have previous experience. I am trying to point out what their previous experience consists of. I am trying to point out to the Minister that, rather than it being beneficial, corrective treatment is needed of its past experience and formation. It is necessary for him to introduce legislation to make clear to the members of the new force exactly what their function is and how far they can go in keeping the old traditions of the Ulster defence forces of the past.
6.30 a.m.
The fourth part of the Amendment is of great importance to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I am sorry that he cannot be present at this time for he has shown great interest in this matter. This part deals with demarcation between police and military activities. The primary recommendation of the Hunt Committee was that from the outset there should


be for the first time in Northern Ireland a police force whose function would be wholly civilian. It is clear that a sharp distinction between military activity and law enforcement agencies will not exist when the military take to themselves the power of the civil authorities.
Paragraph 183 of the Report says:
The R.U.C. should be relieved of all duties of a military nature as soon as possible and its contribution to the security of Northern Ireland from subversion should be limited to the gathering of intelligence, the protection of important persons and the enforcement of the relevant laws.
As the Hunt Committee found it necessary to have this demarcation, the Minister should back it to the full. He should deal with some of the legal idiosyncrasies which give rise to administrative difficulties. He can do this effectively only by setting at the outset the demarcation and the functions and limitations of this force.
The most important part of the Amendment recognises the particular question which took up much of the time of the House on the Police Bill—the incidence of the Special Powers Act. The British Army stationed in Northern Ireland at present is there on the basis of that Act and members of the Regular forces are using the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland. We must consider this whole question in relation to a force to be formed for the area of Northern Ireland. We must consider why it is necessary to write into this Bill that no member of the force will be empowered to use the Special Powers Act.
There are a number of very good reasons for this. I have disagreed that it is necessary to get anyone into the force. My attitude is not confined to saying that Catholics should not be in it; I do not think Protestants should be in it. We have heard a great deal from hon. Members about whether or not Catholics can be encouraged to join the force. There has been considerable controversy on this question. It should be thought out in depth. Why should members of the Catholic Church join, not because they are members of that Church, but because throughout the history of Northern Ireland they have become identified as the minority, the disloyal minority, the dissident minority, the non-participating minority, against

whom the Special Powers Act Regulations have been used? Why should Catholics join a force which is empowered to use the Special Powers Act and which, although it has an entrance quota of 33 per cent. Roman Catholics, has never exceeded an intake of 11 per cent? Fair-minded people are reluctant to join an organisation which is required to enforce so repugnant a Measure.
When we consider the Special Powers Act in relation to Northern Ireland, we must look further afield; to, for example, similar legislation passed by the South African Government. When, in either country, a person is asked to join this sort of force, he is bound to question what sort of company with whom he will mix and the type of orders he will be expected to carry out. In South Africa he will be among members, as well as leaders, of that country's Nationalist Party.
In this connection, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Africa published in April 1968 a book entitled "South Africa and the Rule of Law", a relevant document when one considers the public feeling in Britain towards the policies of the South African Government. It may help if I quote from this book.

The Chairman: Order. I am wondering how, even by example, this can be relevant to the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me.

Miss Devlin: The book attempts to justify South Africa's adoption of, for example, the Suppression of Communism Act and the Suppression of Terrorism Act. It is relevant to the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: The hon. Lady cannot deal with the situation in South Africa. She must address her remarks to the Amendment.

Miss Devlin: I am, and a few quotations from the book——

The Chairman: Order. The Chair would not have called the hon. Lady to order if it did not think that she was getting out of order. I will allow the hon. Lady to quote a few sentences from the book, but she must come back to order quickly and leave the South African situation alone.

Miss Devlin: I am pointing out the thoughts that obviously go through the mind of a fair-minded person who is asked to become a member of such a force and implement legislation like the Special Powers Act. We are told that the new force will improve community relations and do away with terrorism. But will it protect the interests of the community as a whole and help to stabilise and unite the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland?
I am trying to illustrate, by the use of similar legislation which was passed through Parliament on the basis of the existence of the Act to which I am opposed, that to allow the Defence Regiment to enforce the Special Powers Act would create a situation similar to that in the country I have cited and which most hon. Members will agree has resulted in anything but harmony and unity among the divided sections of that country. It is, therefore, relevant for me to describe in a few sentences, not South African legislation, but the Special Powers Act, which I am asking that members of the new Defence Regiment should not be empowered to use.
The Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, 1922, of Northern Ireland. Originally this Act was extended from year to year until 1933 when it was extended 'until Parliament otherwise determines'. The provisions of the Act and its regulations are stated hereafter as they were in 1963, but as far as is known they are still in force. Section 1 of the Act gives the 'Civil Authority' the power to take all such steps and issue all such orders in respect of persons, matters and things within the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland as may be necessary for preserving the peace and maintaining order and according to and in execution of the Act and regulations.
Regulation 11 of the regulations contained in S.R.O.1956 No. 191 provides that any authorised person or police constable may arrest without warrant …
And this is relevant, because "authorised person" here could well mean a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
… any person whom he suspects of acting in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order or upon whom may be found any article, book, etc. which gives ground for such a suspicion. Any person so arrested may be detained until he has been discharged by direction of the Attorney-General or is brought before a court of summary jurisdiction. Any detained person may apply to the 'Civil Authority' for release on bail, and if the 'Civil Authority' so directs a magistrate may discharge him.

Regulation 12 provides that on the recommendation of a police officer not below the rank of County Inspector, or of an Advisory Committee, that if a person is suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order, the Minister of Home Affairs may require that person forthwith, or from time to time, either to remain in or to proceed to and reside in, such place as may be specified and to comply with such directions as to reporting to the police, restriction of movement and otherwise as specified or to be interned as directed.

The Chairman: It would be out of order to repeat the whole of the Special Powers Act.

Miss Devlin: I was simply using that excellent description of the Special Powers Act to point out how it was used to justify the legislation of a country to which this Government is totally opposed, and it is relevant that this Government cannot consider itself in the slightest way consistent if it creates a force and authorises that force to carry out such powers as the Special Powers Act may give it and, at the same time, make any pretence to be opposed to the legislation of South Africa based on the justification of the Special Powers Act, which I am asking that no member of the Defence Regiment be allowed to enforce.

6.45 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady appears to be discussing the relevance of South African legislation. Such matters seem to be a little wide of the Amendment.

Miss Devlin: I will try to leave the point as quickly as possible. I am not discussing the merits or otherwise of the Government's attitude to South Africa. I am simply pointing out a number of facts. Because the Government of this country will be totally responsible for this new force, their attitude to the Special Powers Act could afford to be slightly different. In the creation of the new force, the Government of their own free will are creating a body and empowering it to use legislation to which this Government state they are totally opposed——

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has made the point several times.

Miss Devlin: I am trying to point out that in making this point it is of relevance to use the legislation of South


Africa. However, I will conclude by saying that the attitude of the Government of South Africa was that they had not yet considered anything by way of such reforms——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is pursuing a course which I have ruled out of order. She must not do so.

Miss Devlin: I have finished on that point. I apologise, Mr. Irving, if what I said was grossly out of order.
The answer by the Minister to the first point will probably be, as it was on the Police Bill, that it is improbable that the force will ever be ordered into such action as I have suggested. During the Committee stage of the Police Bill we were told that the Special Powers Act would be reviewed in future although some of its provisions would have to be met.
There are two points to be made. First, on the day in 1922 when the Special Powers Act was introduced in the Northern Ireland House of Commons it was promised that the position would be reviewed annually. Nobody, least of all the Unionist Party, wanted such legislation on the statute book. But still today, in 1969, it remains there.
Assurances that the Special Powers Act would be repealed have been repeated year after year. In November, 1968, we had a further assurance, and we have had assurances from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. We have also had assurances from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are opposed to the existence of the Special Powers Act. Yet today two men are still in Belfast prison under this Act. Therefore the Committee will forgive me if I feel cynical about assurances. I must demand a repeal of this Act. But let us take it a bit further——

Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Irving, I would suggest that the scope of this debate apparently could go very wide indeed. It will be noted that paragraph (f) refers to engaging in traffic direction or control. If the hon. Lady is able to argue the whole case about every bit of the Special Powers Act, she will presumably be able to argue every point as to whether the law on each item of the traffic regulations is desirable

or undesirable in Northern Ireland. By tacking a number of points together and going into detail, if it is to be allowed to continue, the width of debate would cover virtually any subject in the world.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have intervened on numerous occasions to limit the remarks of the hon. Lady in terms of whether they are relevant or repetitious. I must allow the hon. Lady to continue.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Irving. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). I had not thought of what he said.
Let us get down to the particular point. Let us accept the assurances and take it that the Special Powers Act will be repealed and that certain provisions will remain, as we have been told.
Let us get down to cases. I assume that the Government have studied the detailed provisions of the Act. Therefore, I want to ask some questions on which I want clear statements from the Minister.
Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to arrest without warrant? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to imprison without charge or trial and to deny recourse to habeas corpus or a court of law? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to enter and search homes without a warrant and with force at any hour of the day or night? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to declare a curfew and to prohibit meetings, assemblies, including fairs and markets, and processions? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to punish by flogging?
Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to deny a claim to trial by jury? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to arrest persons whom it is desired to examine as witnesses, to forcibly detain them, and to compel them to answer questions under penalties, even if the answers may incriminate them? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to charge such a person with an offence if he refuses to be sworn


or to answer a question? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to prevent access of relatives or legal advisers to a person imprisoned without trial? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death? Will members of the Ulster Defence Regiment be required or permitted to arrest a person who, by word of mouth, spreads false reports or makes false statements?

The Chairman: Order. I think that now the hon. Lady, by elaboration, is going beyond the rules of order.

Miss Devlin: With due respect to the Chair, I cannot see how this is anything but totally relevant to the Amendment.I have accepted that the Government have assured us of the repeal of certain provisions of the Act. I first argued the case for total repeal of the Act. I am now asking, having accepted the Government's assurances, for a clear statement on which sections of the Act will remain. Therefore, I think that I am in order in asking such questions.
The Minister will excuse my cynicism on this point, but it is my view that any right hon. or hon. Member who says that he is opposed to the existence of the Special Powers Act, and yet is prepared to see the House of Commons create a force to use that Act, cannot expect me or anyone else to treat with much seriousness his claims to abhor the Act.

The Chairman: Order. The hon Lady has made this point on a number of occasions. This is becoming tedious repetition.

Miss Devlin: I will, therefore, sum up on that point. Despite the brilliant idea given to me by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, much as I should like to do so, it is not my intention at this stage to deal with every piece of traffic law that Northern Ireland can produce. I have included traffic duty as an illustration. I feel that members of the Ulster Defence Regiment should be strictly confined to the guarding of installations and that all possible contact with the general public should be avoided. I put that forward on the basis that this force will be comprised of members of the Ulster Special Constabulary who have no experience

of dealing with the public, either in an individual or a crowd capacity, with any kind of military dexterity or capability.
I ask the Minister to consider seriously each of the points that I have put forward, and to accept that the only way to create a balanced and impartial force in Northern Ireland is to define clearly what its functions are and where those functions end. I must repeat that assurances given by the Minister are not enough to satisfy the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What a relief it is that Mr. Bowes Egan did not have time to write a treatise on the traffic regulations as well.
I should not have intervened in the debate but for the mention by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) of one of my constituents. In the normal course of events, I should have advised my hon. Friends to disregard most of the venomous nonsense which has come from the hon. Lady about the B Specials and the generalised sneer on a very fine force which consists in the main of ordinary decent people who have the right to have their case heard.
I intervene purely and simply because of something said by the hon. Lady about a constituent of mine. I should be lacking in my duty if I did not afford him some protection. The hon. Lady made an allegation about a constituent of mine at Burntollet. Has this allegation been made outside the House? If not, is the hon. Lady prepared to make it outside? The hon. Lady may say that the allegation has been made in a book. If it has, that is a different mater, but, in fairness to my constituent, the hon. Lady ought to answer my questions.

Miss Devlin: The allegation has been made repeatedly. The Minister for Home Affairs is aware of it, as is the gentleman concerned, and no steps have been taken, either by the gentleman concerned or by the Minister for Home Affairs, to investigate it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What I am asking is not as simple as that. Has the hon. Lady made this allegation in public? If not, is she prepared to do so? I do not know the gentleman in question, Mr. Kenneth Moor, except by name. I have


no brief for him, and I know nothing about him, but—and I am sure that the hon. Lady would do this for one of her constituents—he ought to have the opportunity to answer the allegation. I hope that the hon. Lady will be prepared to make the allegation outside.

Hon. Members: It has been answered.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It has not been anwered, and I think that some people will be surprised at the hon. Lady making an allegation in the House which she is not prepared to substantiate outside.

Miss Devlin: I have said that the gentleman referred to has had opportunities in the past to repudiate this allegation. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs has been asked to inquire into this and a number of other allegations about people who were members of the U.S.C. The Minister has refrained from making such inquiries. It is therefore not my responsibility to repeat the allegation outside the House. The Minister for Home Affairs being aware of the allegation, it is his responsibility to investigate it.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The man in question is not a rich landowner like the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep his behaviour for the waterfront.

Mr. Newens: On a point of Order. Is it in order for this matter to be pursued while we are considering this Bill in Committee in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman is pursuing it in an endeavour to extort some statement which is irrelevant to our discussion?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): Order. I fear that the Committee has strayed from the terms of the Amendment. It is time to return to it.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That may be so, Sir Alfred, but it is a sad thing if the House cannot be used to defend a constituent who is attacked under privilege and when he has no opportunity to defend himself in public.
I did condemn the behaviour of the people at Burntollet, and I do so now, just as I condemn the folly of that march.

I have not changed my view about that. [Interruption.] Everybody should be able to march everywhere, but it is not always possible. We do not have that kind of ideal world anywhere—not even in this country.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has again strayed from the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely agree, Sir Alfred. I was provoked.
I want to touch on something that has been mentioned concerning a place called McVeagh's Corner. I was at McVeagh's Corner. I am glad that I was, because while I was there I managed to do a certain amount of restraining by holding back one gentleman by the scruff of the neck and so preventing his attacking the hon. Lady. Despite all that has happened since, I am not sure that I would not take that action again.

Mr. Hattersley: Those of us who have spent some time in trying to make our feeble and perhaps inadequate attempts to help solve the problems of Northern Ireland may be allowed a certain amount of regret that so often these debates when we have seemed to degenerate into a long series of recriminations. I say this at the risk of antagonising hon. Members on both sides of the Committee: we might begin to forget the personal past, the immediate past and, perhaps much more important, the long distance and, I hope, now long dead past.
My hon. Friend was chided by some of his hon. Friends for having, as an example of the need for the Ulster Defence Regiment, referred to incidents which took place between 1952 and 1962. We have now gone very much further back than that. I do not intend to pursue the points made about 1922 and 1936. I shall do only three things—deal as best I can with the three fundamental points which have been raised. The first subsection of the Amendment asks for a prohibition on members of the new regiment carrying out duties in connection with an industrial dispute. That is a prohibition that I regard as altogether proper, and which appeared in the Home Guard Act.
In view of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), I think I


should talk about the technical inadequacies of the Amendment. I must tell the House and the hon. Lady that the technical inadequacies of her Amendment in this regard are such that I must draw the attention of the Committee to them. Were we to accept her Amendment and remove a large part of Clause 1 (5), we should have to remove from the control of the force some of the main provisions about its not serving outside Northern Ireland and about the terms on which it is called out. For that specific technical reason, I am unable to do what I think she demanded to be done—which was to accept the Amendment, the whole Amendment and nothing but the Amendment. If that is her requirement, then I fear she must be disappointed. But if she is simply anxious that the obligation not to carry out duties in connection with industrial disputes should be specified in some official form, rather than to rely on the simple acceptance of my word, then she can have my assurance—and eventually have it in printed form—that the regulations covering the behaviour of this force in Section 1(5) will include a prohibition in terms as close to the Home Guard Act as are consistent with that document.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked us to examine the obligations we have placed on the force not to engage in crowd control or riot duties. I cannot give an assurance that a provision of that sort will be written into the regulations for this reason. It is essentially the intention of the Secretary of State, and under him the G.O.C. and the commander of the force, that the regiment shall not be used for this purpose, but the regiment, like any other body, has in common law an obligation to protect life and property under certain circumstances. It would, in my view, be fantastic if we were to write out the regiment's common law obligation when it is an obligation which applies to every other body.
I would express the hope that soon the hon. Lady will come to accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend and myself. I do not chide her for feeling some cynicism about assurances received from others on other occasions, but I only hope that over many years of service in this House she will come to believe that when he, or I on his behalf, give assurances, they will be carried out.

She has the assurance that we do not intend the force to be engaged on crowd control.

Mr. Michael Foot: Before my hon. Friend lectures the hon. Lady any further on accepting his assurances, will he not understand that on many occasions in this House it is required by hon. Members that if ways can be found of incorporating an intention in an Act of Parliament it is a very much better way of doing it? Though my hon. Friend has agreed to incorporate the first item in the regulations, would he not try to see whether this other assurance cannot be incorporated into the regulations, too, and not fall back on the resort of many an embarrassed Minister and say, "I hope the House will accept my assurance"? I accept my hon. Friend's assurances, but I would prefer to have them in the regulations, and even more to have them in the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand my hon. Friend's order of priorities, and I would share it if I were in his position. That is why, where it is possible to write it into a document, I have agreed to write it in. I have no wish to lecture the hon. Lady, but to hear her view, in a speech lasting one and a quarter hours, that the simple assurances of the Minister are not good enough——

Miss Devlin: I was not in any way casting any slight on the existing Government, or on the assurances of the existing Minister. I was merely pointing out that, whereas I did accept the assurances of the Minister in good faith, I felt that these were important matters which must outlast any Minister and any Government. That is why I wanted them in the Bill, not because I did not trust the existing Minister.

Mr. Hattersley: Then, as far as I see it, honour is entirely served, and I hope the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that our only wish is to convince her of our good intentions in this matter.
The third point she raised is the relationship of this force to the special powers. It is not appropriate or possible for me to deal at any length with the general issue of the special powers to which she referred. But I hope she will accept from me, as she did from the Minister of State for the Home Department, that there is in this Government


the greatest reluctance to operate much of the Special Powers Act. We share her reservations about a great deal of it. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, that the assurances given by the Stormont Government, both in November, 1967, and more recently in October, 1968, that they wish to move to a situation in which the special powers are revised, is an honest and honourable assurance; and I have no doubt at all that movement in that direction will be encouraged and facilitated.
It is not possible for me—nor is it my responsibility—to say any more than that about the special powers in general. What I must tell the Committee and the hon. Lady is that, although it is certainly not our intention, nor will regulations permit, for inappropriate special powers to be used by the Regiment, there are some of the special powers which the regiment will need, if it is to carry out the duties which I believe the House of Commons in general wishes it to carry out.
I give an example. At the risk of detaining the Committee, I read No. 6 of the special powers in full:
Any police officer or constable or member of any of Her Majesty's Forces on duty if he suspects that any person is carrying any firearms, ammunition, explosive substances or any article or document for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, may stop that person and search him and may seize any firearms, ammunition, explosive substances …
I said that I would read it in full, but I do not need to continue. I am sure that the Committee understands perfectly well that this is exactly the sort of task which the Army is at present carrying out. It is exactly the sort of task which the new regiment should carry out. It is exactly the sort of task which I believe the hon. Lady and my hon. Friends would want it to carry out.
In this situation—a situation of tension and possibly danger in Northern Ireland—one of the things that the regiment would be doing would be stopping and searching for firearms when it was suspected that there was gun running—gun running in any direction, gun running by any extremist. At the moment, the powers the regiment would need to

operate such a scheme would result from the Special Powers Act. Believing, as we do, that the Stormont Government will move to a revision of the Special Powers Act, we look forward to the day when we have only powers necessary for our task. Until that day we must rely on those parts of the Special Powers Act which make it possible for us to go on doing the job which is vitally necessary in the interests of the community as a whole.
Finally, again incurring the risk that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will accuse me of lecturing the hon. Lady, though it is not my intention to do so, I must say that all that she said in her most recent speech about our provisions for the regiment implied the belief that the provisions that we have discussed already in Committee and the provisions which we outlined on Second Reading will fail. Her fears about the regiment, as expressed in her speech on this Amendment, implied that she suspects that we will not get a decent balance in the force, that we will not vet the entrants adequately, that we will allow dangerous men to do dangerous things when the new regiment is formed.
I urge the hon. Lady and my hon. Friends to believe that, although dangerous men may have done dangerous things in the past, it is our intention that they should not appear in the force. I urge the hon. Lady to have more hope for the force than clearly she has and to have more faith in my right hon. Friend and the British Army, in that it is their intention—and their intention shall be carried out—that this shall be an entirely respectable and entirely honourable organisation.

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend gave an example of the type of provision in the Special Powers Act which the Government may wish to retain in respect of the regiment. Is he able now—or, if not now, later—to be more specific on this point? The Committee wants to know precisely which Sections of the Special Powers Act my hon. Friend would see the regiment as needing for its operations.

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot go through it Section by Section now. As we keep reminding the Committee, as soon as the


Regiment is formed it will be subject to the normal parliamentary control and, if my hon. Friend tables a Question then, I shall have to go through it Section by Section.

7.15 a.m.

Miss Devlin: Although I am still not satisfied that the Minister's reply will do anything to alleviate the fears which he described, he has said that a provision relating to industrial disputes will be written into the Regulations and, on that basis, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: On Second Reading, I mentioned the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. What are the Minister's intentions in the Regulations under Clause 1? The White Paper said that service with the B Specials and the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be taken into account in estimating bounty and special service medals. I suggested that service with the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve should also be taken into account. I should be grateful for more information.

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman much more than I hold him on Second Reading, which was that we were sympathetic to the idea of meritorious service with the Territorials counting in the aggregate bonus for the force. Not least of the complications, however, is our desire to put members with military experience into the new force. I cannot give a definitive answer on these matters, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave it, in the knowledge that we are sympathetic, until the Regulations are published.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

LIABILITIES FOR SERVICE AND TRAINING

Mr. John Mendelson: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 6, at end insert:
Provided that all arms under the authority of such officers shall be stored in armouries

and not in the private houses of members of the force.
I am moving this important Amendment in the light of the debate on Second Reading. Some of the main arguments will already be familiar to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but we hope that we will receive firm assurances that the Government will be prepared to move in our direction. An important principle is involved here, involving the success or failure of this whole enterprise.
As on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the large numbers of arms which are spread over Northern Ireland in so many homes. I refer not just to the B Specials but to the general conviction, which will be common ground in the Committee, and is certainly felt by many people in Northern Ireland, that there are too many arms about. That is the situation from which we should start the debate.
There is a feeling of uncertainty. Only a week ago the Army authorities had to publish a special statement assuring the people of Northern Ireland that they need not be alarmed, following reports of widespread gun running. The Army said that it had the posiiton under control. This is therefore an explosive and sensitive issue. In the past there have been complaints on many occasions about the attitude of B Specials when stopping vehicles. They may have been genuinely convinced that something wrong was taking place on that road—or they may have had no reason for such conviction; but, as it was put to me by one authority in Northern Ireland, some B Specials have pointed a gun through the window of the vehicle before even starting the inquiry.
There is no doubt that the fact that so many of these people had their arms stored at home was a contributory factor to others feeling intimidated by them. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan), who has visited Northern Ireland several times in recent years, will confirm that.
The situation was evident to the military authorities in Northern Ireland after the disturbances. I said on Second Reading, and I repeat, that it was the opinion of competent British military authorities shortly after the disturbances that there were too many arms and that


it was not desirable that people should keep their arms at home. That is normally the attitude of all General Officers and officers under their command. There is always a feeling in Army circles that arms should be kept in armouries and that people should not keep them at home. The control of arms is one of the most strictly enforced regulations in the Army. Never do the Army authorities take a light-hearted attitude to the storing of arms, and all members of an organised military force are made personally responsible for the arms which they might use.
The Government ought to accept the intention of the Amendment, for it does not involve any large-scale change in the administration of the force. It is an important but narrow point. There is common ground between the Government and the supporters of the Amendment that by and large most arms should be stored in armouries. The G.O.C., with the support of the Secretary of State, has announced that in the bigger towns and cities no arms should be kept at home, but it is precisely in the countryside that over the last 20 years there have been most complaints about the use of arms by people storing them at home.
No answer was given by the Government to the case made on Second Reading that if the members of the force are to carry out an operation it will be under the strict instructions of the G.O.C. and those under his command and that therefore the most sensible method is to have arms stored in an armoury and to have the local commander call on members of the force to go to the armoury to collect their arms and then to take such action as they are ordered to take.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward an interesting statement. What does he mean by "armoury"? How far does he imagine that an armoury would be, in average distance, from the homes of privates in the new regiment? What system of guarding such armouries does he propose?

Mr. Mendelson: When I was in Northern Ireland and discussing these matters, a number of detailed points were made and no difficulty was envisaged

in arranging all the matters the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am not setting myself up as a military authority who is going to give instructions to the G.O.C. as to where the armouries are to be located or as to the distances within a certain circumference of a local unit at which the armouries should be placed. It would be absurd of me to try to do so. These are rhetorical questions and it would be wrong of me to engage in arguments as to where armouries should be placed.
In principle, however, I suggest that there would—as the G.O.C. has already ordered—be central armouries in the major cities and towns and that it would not be beyond the wit of man to provide secure places in the areas into which the force is to be divided—such places being, in the normal tradition of the Army, secret and protected. The hon. Gentleman's adventurist view, that the country is filled with people trying to invade and steal from armouries, is absurd. It has been under cover of such alarmist and adventurist attitudes that intimidation by the B Specials of the minority has been carried on for so many years. I do not accept the alarmist and adventurist phrases of the hon. Member's rhetorical questions.
This is a narrow but important point. I hope the Government will say that they see the sense in the Amendment and will introduce regulations that will cut out the provision whereby arms may be kept in private homes by members of the new force. This would go a long way to reassuring those of us with grave doubts about the agreement between the Government and Stormont, and would remove some of the other suspicions in our minds. I hope we shall receive a positive response.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The Minister of Defence for Administration outlined on Second Reading the circumstances in which it would be necessary for arms to be kept at home, particularly in country areas. In the country, where distances are big and the members of the new force are spread over a wide area, there would be great practical problems in organising armouries. They would be very small, to start with. They would be vulnerable to attack. It could be argued that, in certain circumstances, arms might be kept at police stations and


this might satisfy the hon. Members opposite to some extent.
7.30 a.m.
The record of the U.S.C. in looking after their arms has been outstanding. I took the trouble to look up the figures, and they may be of interest to hon. Members. The procedure is that there is a regular inspection of the arms and ammunition of every man in the force. Since 1936 the force has gone from 8,000 to more than 20,000 men, and during that time 15 Lee Enfield rifles, two Sterling sub-machine guns, one Sten gun and five revolvers have been lost, a remarkable achievement in just over a quarter of a century.
It should be remembered that there are dangers in keeping arms in armouries. I do not want to criticise, but it should be remembered that in the raid on Gough Barracks the I.R.A. in 1954–55 stole more arms in one raid—and they were very useful to the I.R.A. in the subsequent campaign—than were stolen in the whole of the 30-year period when men of the Ulster Special Constabulary kept their arms at home. It is worth recording their remarkable achievement in taking care of their arms and ensuring their security.

Mr. Orme: I support the Amendment, which is important. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that this is not only a military but an emotional subject. The fact that men of the former B Specials, now to be the new regiment, have kept their arms at home has been bad because by definition it has led to a distinction between "them" and "us". I had the unfortunate experience of seeing the B Specials in operation in Northern Ireland on 14th August in Derry.
I am glad that the unit is to be reorganised, but the Minister will understand that as our main Amendments have not been accepted we still have serious reservations and we must ensure that the Bill is absolutely clear.
The argument about country areas has been advanced consistently, but until such time as arrangements can be made for the disposal of the arms in special areas, responsibility for the immediate guarding of installations, if that is necessary, must rest with the Army. If the new regiment is to be part of the British Army, it should be subject to the same rules as the

rest of the British Army. On Second Reading I asked the Minister in what other countries arms were kept at home, and I was told Switzerland and Denmark. Those examples are not apposite in this connection. The tradition in this part of the United Kingdom of keeping arms at home must be broken if we are to gain the support of those whose support we seek. To do so would remove one of the causes for genuine concern in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: I would like to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the remarkable record of the Ulster Special Constabulary over many years in the keeping of its arms. A great deal of emotion has crept into the argument about keeping arms at home.

Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the major argument for many of us is not whether or not arms have been lost or whether or not the statistics are correct? The point is that even while those arms have been in the hands of those issued with them they may at various times have been misused. The statistics prove nothing. I remember bullet marks I saw in the walls in Belfast, which proved that too many arms were in hands that they should not be in.

Mr. Maginnis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the point we are discussing is not what happened to the arms when they were in the possession of the U.S.C. but what will happen when they are in the possession of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I remind hon. Members that paragraph 14 of the White Paper says:
In order that the force can react effectively to 'guerilla-type attacks' it may be necessary to authorise some members of the force in certain circumstances"—
I emphasise those words—
to draw arms and ammunition and keep them at home.
The safeguard is in the following words:
When this happens such members will be subject to military law while arms and ammunition are in their charge.
That states unequivocally that anyone in the new Ulster Defence Regiment who has been authorised to keep his arms at


home will be under strict military control. I accept that, and I am sure that hon. Members can visualise that the arms will be authorised to be kept at home only in very exceptional circumstances. With that safeguard, that they are under strict military law, we should not worry too much about the keeping of arms at home.

Mr. McGuire: I want to speak on this issue because I was in Northern Ireland, where I usually go for my holidays, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his visit. I was in the village of Carnlough, Co. Antrim. I well remember that at his Press conference his very first words were to the effect that his first impression on going around Northern Ireland was that there were far too many arms knocking about for comfort and safety. The provision that in exceptional circumstances people can retain arms at home has never been justified. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) raised this question on Second Reading, and the countries mentioned in reply as examples of places where this sort of thing happens are no analogy with the circumstances which prevail in Northern Ireland, with a divided community.
It is said that with great courage the police have gone around unarmed as a move to help create better feeling between the communities and them and to have them more accepted. I recognise that psychologically this must have been a serious matter for the police, but they now say that they are better off going around unarmed.
A Clause which will allow people to keep arms at home under exceptional circumstances will not dispel the feeling that exists in Northern Ireland that some people are privileged. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remember the statement of the Home Secretary about there being too many arms knocking around, and that it was the Government's job to see that possession was much reduced and that nobody should draw arms to keep at home.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has said, it is not a question of how many arms were lost. It may be that the figures are correct. It is a question rather of abuse of those

that were not lost that were not handed in. There was no check, I believe, on how many rounds were fired. This kind of Clause is not conducive to better relations in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will see the sense of what I am saying and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Henry Clark: I feel that the hon. Member is making a baseless assertion. He says that there may have been abuses. He says that ammunition was not checked. It is very carefully checked in the Ulster Special Constabulary. Has the hon. Member any evidence to suggest that there were abuses? Even if there were abuses, we have the figures from the Secretary of State for Defence on Second Reading. He pointed out that during the last period of tension with the I.R.A. some 3 million separate patrols were carried out by the U.S.C. Is the hon. Member prepared to say that any reasonable proportion of those patrols led to complaints or abuse of arms?

Mr. McGuire: As I have said, I go to Northern Ireland for my holidays. While I am not as conversant as the hon. Member with what goes on in Northern Ireland, nevertheless I do not have the same biased view as he does. When one talks to ordinary people, they certainly associate with the B Specials abuse of the firearms they carry. They do not accept that there were never abuses.
I am not blackening these men indiscriminately, but I shall not allow the hon. Member to whitewash them. A tribunal is sitting, and we will wait for its results. Enough evidence has emerged so far to say that there was abuse.

Mr. Henry Clark: What evidence?

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend recall that on 14th and 15th November, in Belfast, a number of shooting incidents occurred in which a number of people were killed as a result of being struck by bullets? A lot of people whom I and my colleagues met when we were in Belfast made the accusation that some of those bullets may have been fired by B Specials. I am not saying whether they were or not, but I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that this substantiates the point he has made in quoting the Home Secretary when he said that there were too many guns about.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): Order. Hon. Members should not use interventions for the purpose of making speeches.

Mr. McGuire: I said that there was reasonable evidence to assume that not always had the men who had those rifles and guns used them properly. There was sufficient evidence, not yet fully proved, to justify my point of view that there was abuse.
I said that I am not going to blacken those men indiscriminately, but I am not allowing the hon. Member to whitewash them. A tribunal is sitting. When the results are published, we will be able to debate the matter fully.

Mr. Goodhart: Before we leave the Amendment, I would like to endorse the very proper tribute paid to the Ulster Special Constabulary by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for its remarkable record in the protection of arms during the last 33 years. According to the figures that my hon. Friend has given to the Committee, the Ulster Special Constabulary has lost less than one rifle every two years, one sub-machine gun every ten years and one revolve every six years. That is a remarkable record which compares favourably with that of any British regiment in peacetime.
7.45 a.m.
Much has been said about indiscriminate firing, but, as hon. Members know, a very careful check is kept on ammunition. Figures show that ammunition lost, misled or fired indiscriminately amounts to one round per month over the last 30 years, which is a remarkable record. We all agree that the proper place for storage of military weapons in normal circumstances is a well guarded, well controlled armoury, but there is a built-in safeguard in the Bill. Clause 1 (2,b,ii) says that a member of the regiment will be subject to military law whenever he keeps weapons at home. He may have some claim to be paid for each day that he keeps a weapon at home. If that is so, I cannot see the Treasury agreeing to a man keeping weapons at home unless that is absolutely necessary.
We all hope that service in the Ulster Defence Regiment will not prove dangerous for those who volunteer to protect the community, but it may prove

dangerous. The efficiency of the force and the safety of some of its members might be put at risk if the Government accepted this Amendment.

Mr. Fitt: It is particularly unfortunate that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has allowed himself to be used to defend the situation which has existed in Northern Ireland by which Specials were allowed to carry arms and take them home. Many hon. Members, particularly those opposite, are unaware of the circumstances which existed in Northern Ireland. They had heard that the B Specials were not liked because they did not behave in a British and a fair way. If the hon. Member knew of these circumstances, he would have condemned the situation as vehemently as have my hon. Friends.
I support the Amendment. If many hon. Members opposite had been present to hear what was said in the debate, they would have supported it. There has been a private army in Northern Ireland used to bolster up the Unionist Party since the inception of the State in 1920. No other part of the United Kingdom has had such a force. I admire the British sense of fair play. British people seek to give fair play to each and every citizen, but in Northern Ireland that has not been the case. The B Specials have been used to bolster up a political system which should be abolished. We recognise that the Government are bringing about a force which will be divorced from that of the B Specials.
Throughout these debates from yesterday evening, fears have been expressed from this side of the Committee that, although we may have a different system and safeguards, we have not the safeguards which we asked for and there will still be the same personnel in the force. The leopard does not change its spots. Under the Bill members of the force in certain circumstances will still be allowed to carry arms home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) explained that during a recent visit to Northern Ireland there were many arms in evidence. I agree with him that a stable and secure society cannot exist with such a state of affairs. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) had the nerve to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) if he had evidence


to prove that arms had been wrongly used. Everybody in Northern Ireland is aware of the voluminous evidence that has existed for years about the illegal use of arms.
In Armagh last November, when the Paisley organisation took over the town, there was a riot—it was a mini-riot by Northern Ireland standards—five men who were arrested were found to be B Specials off duty, but they all carried guns. A shot was fired at a Press photographer at a civil rights demonstration in Dungannon. The bullet hit the camera and a man aged over 60 was arrested. He, too, was found to be a B Special. Although he had not been mobolised for the occasion, he had arms with him. It was miraculous that the photographer, who was only doing his job, was not killed.
There followed a change of Government in Northern Ireland, and, under the present Prime Minister, an amnesty was declared. Foolishly, we welcomed it—I was at Stormont when the amnesty was announced—because as the facts began to emerge we realised that the amnesty was called not to protect the people but to let off the hook many members of the B Specials who had been using arms illegally. During recent disturbances in the City of Belfast——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Fitt: We do not want members of the new force to take their arms home. Since it has been pointed out time and again that the new regiment will be comprised of former B Specials, it is right that I should point out the character of the B Specials.
A member of the B Specials, who will probably be admitted to the new regiment, was at the time of which I have been speaking a member of the bodyguard of the then Minister of Home Affairs. It was said to have been an accident, but that man killed his wife or child. It seems that that man will be entitled to be a member of the new force and be allowed to take his arms home. He does not live in an outlying part.
The Hunt Report said that an attack on the constitution or on the border was

not evisaged. I therefore cannot see why members of the new regiment should be allowed to take their arms home. We have had far too many arms in Northern Ireland for too many years, and there have been far too many accidents and fatalities. I suggest that this is the appropriate time for the Minister to ensure that in no circumstances will arms be permitted to be kept in an individual's household.

Mr. Hattersley: I hope my hon. Friends gathered from what I said on Second Reading that I have the greatest sympathy with the point which they put forward. Having said something which I hope they will find encouraging, let me take the bull by the horns and say first what is less encouraging.
I believe that there will be a few circumstances, limited by the criteria I outlined on Second Reading, when it will be for some time necessary for a number of members of the new regiment to keep their arms at home. I cannot be pressed to give an estimate of what that number will be, but I specify the conditions under which the necessity will arise as these. They are certainly members of the force who live in isolated areas and who may be called out at very short notice and could not conceivably collect their arms from a central depot. They are members of the force who genuinely believe—and I do not try to estimate how accurate is their belief—that they are under a personal threat if they are not allowed legitimately to keep arms at home. I believe that for them there must be a permanent—by that I mean perhaps two or three years——

Mr. Fitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the past two or three years, since my election to the House of Commons, I have been inundated with threatening telephone calls and letters, and this is still going on whilst I am over here? I believe that I am being personally threatened. Would my hon. Friend concede that I should have the right to carry arms at home to defend myself?

Mr. Hattersley: I would not concede it in this context for a minute, because I am speaking of the rural context. I hope that the authorities of Northern Ireland and certainly the Army, for which I have some responsibility, are


able to provide protection for my hon. Friend in towns, and in towns it is entirely inappropriate for arms to be kept at home.
I am talking about men, who may be not so rational about these things as my hon. Friend, and who live, for instance, on the tip of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. They genuinely believe that their lives are at stake, and can quote incursions from the south six years ago and will show lists of their friends and relatives who died in border raids. They have a genuine fear.
This group of persons is not large in number, but I would be less than honest to my hon. Friend and less responsible about the force if I did not say that for some time in the future this group— I hesitate to call it a small group—of officers and men of the force will possibly need to be given permission by an officer of the British Army to keep their arms at home.
To put the situation in its proper context, we began to talk again this morning, as we did in the week before last, as if the provisions we are now discussing are likely to increase the number of arms kept at home, or at least not decrease them. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said, quite rightly, that the G.O.C. was anxious to reduce the number of arms at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spoke of the Home Secretary rightly saying that there are too many arms about at this moment. Despite both those convictions, which I absolutely share, there are substantial numbers of arms legitimately held by special constables in their own homes, because the reduction of arms held at home has basically taken place only in the two major cities.
We expect and require now that the process shall continue, and that many more men who have up to now been given arms at home shall have them centralised. I promise that from now on there will be a reduction in numbers.
The front page lead story of the Daily Express, Northern Ireland edition, which began by saying that the new force would result in B Specials keeping arms at home, in a way they had previously not

been able to do was not only wrong but diametrically wrong. The numbers will go down from now on, but they will go down in these special conditions.
I make it clear that nobody will be allowed to keep arms at home either for prestige or for convenience. Nobody will be able to say "I do not want to make a detour to the armoury to pick up my rifle, which is time-consuming and embarrassing". But what will be possible is for us to say, what it will be necessary for us to say, that until armouries are built it is probably better to have individual rifles in individual houses than large groups of rifles and substantial quantities of arms and ammunition in a centralised place which is inadequately guarded and is an inevitable target for extremists of all sorts who hope to steal, and who in the past have been successful in stealing, arms in large numbers.
8.0 a.m.
We are instituting immediately a programme of armoury building. I will tell the Committee what that means. We are now trying to decide—so far as we are allowed to decide before the Bill becomes law—on the organisation of the force, and where each company and each platoon ought to be located. When those decisions have been taken, we will start immediately to build armouries at the places where the companies and platoons meet. When secure armouries are provided, sometimes by building new structures, sometimes by adapting old ones, we will then be able to centralise arms in large numbers and be sure that they are under lock and key, so that they are not a temptation to marauders of one sort or another. They will remain there neither provoking the population nor tempting arms runners. That is our policy, a policy that will go on gradually between now and 1st April and will accelerate after that date.
Having said that, and having assured my hon. Friends that this will mean a spectacular reduction in four or five months of the number of arms kept in individual homes, I reiterate that I cannot possibly promise that there will not be some occasion on which arms will be kept at home. But I can assure the Committee that they will not be characteristic of the force as a whole


and will be a dwindling number from now on.

Mr. McNamara: While these people have these arms in their possession, can the Minister say what are the restraints at the moment and in what sorts of conditions arms are allowed to be kept at home? Do they need any sort of permission? In the new force, for example, will they need to have written permission? These matters need to be spelt out.

Mr. Hattersley: At the moment they need the permission of the officer commanding their unit. That permission is tacitly given if they are not in the two areas where arms have been called in. If they are not in Belfast or Londonderry, they are by the nature of the present operation committing no offence if they take their arms home. When the new force comes into operation, specific permission to keep arms at home will be given by an officer of the British Army of the rank of major or above, because it is consistent with and related to the powers that he will exercise in calling out the force. That permission will depend on the availability of armouries and the location of the men in question.
In regard to sanctions, the sanctions which will apply to men in the new force if while keeping arms at home they behave in an unfortunate way will be appreciably greater than they are at present. At present the men are subject to the normal law. In the new regiment they will be subject to military law on all occasions that arms and ammunition are in their possession. Therefore there will be substantial sanctions against a man who loses his rifle, or a man who uses his rifle in a way that is not consistent with his honourable membership of the Regiment.

Mr. Ryan: My hon. Friend has described a situation in which certain people, for some reason which he does not describe, feel that they require arms, and he points to a historical situation as evidence for it. It seems to me that these people are potentially dangerous, and certain things emerge.
Are the people whom my hon. Friend wants to encourage into the force those

who, in his view, are irrational, who live near the border, and who, for some mystical or prestige reason, think that they should have weapons? If that is so, he will not create much confidence among those in Bogside who have no ability to possess weapons and have fears about being attacked—fears based on reality.
We would all like to see a tightening up on the possession of weapons. We would like to see the Firearms Act applied as strictly in Northern Ireland as it is here where it is difficult to possess weapons without a legitimate purpose. We are amazed that the Minister should concede to irrationality. Surely the proper course would be to put a complete ban on the carrying of weapons home by the force, apart from the temporary situation, which is adequate, and then, in two or three years, in the light of the operations of the force, to see whether it was necessary to revert to the previous position. This would be a real step forward, instead of the unsatisfactory step which is being taken. Will my hon. Friend accept the invitation to go into more detail about these irrational people living near the border who, by his decision, can keep weapons at home?

Mr. John Mendelson: This is a matter of great principle. The Minister has gone some way towards satisfying some of the proposals that we have made, but he has honestly said that for some months there can be no radical change. He has also mentioned a category of people who have provided special reasons why they ought to be allowed to keep arms at home. I do not believe that it can be the views of individual members of an organised force, particularly a newly created military force, should have any influence on my right hon. Friend's decision whether they should be allowed to keep weapons at home. My right hon. Friend must make this decision regardless of the views of the individuals concerned. If a decision is made concerning individuals on one side, then others might feel insecure living next to such people and they may seek ways and means of keeping arms at home.
This is a matter on which we have grave fears. Therefore, I must ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment in the Division Lobbies.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise to the Committee for keeping it, but it will be for no more than a few sentences. The White Paper says that members of the new force will have to go to training camp for 12 days, which will mean a week's training and then another separate weekend's training. I remind the Minister that many people in this force are ordinary working men, small business men and small farmers. I hope that it will be possible to exercise a certain amount of flexibility in fixing the weekend camp to which an individual goes, and that it will not be said that there will be no alternative date if his commitments warrant a change. I agree that he must do his proper training.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 99.

Division No. 24.
AYES
[8.7 a.m.


Barnes, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Orme, Stanley


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
McNamara, J. Kevin



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. John Ryan and


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Newens, Stan
Mr. Russell Kerr.


Lee, John (Reading)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Hattersley, Roy
Murray, Albert


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hazell, Bert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Howie, W.
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pym, Francis


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clark, Henry
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Conlan, Bernard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
MacColl, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
McElhone, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Speed, Keith


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dell, Edmund
Mackie, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McMaster, Stanley
Tinn, James


Dobson, Ray
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th amp; C'b'e)
McMillan, Tom (Clasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitaker, Ben


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
More, Jasper



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. William Hamling and


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
J. D. Concannon.


Harper, Joseph

In the Second Reading debate the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said that a number of people joined the Ulster Special Constabulary to avoid military service. That is totally untrue. The implication of the point she made was that people in Northern Ireland joined the Constabulary to avoid conscription. That is completely inaccurate, historically.

I also say that the people of Northern Ireland had a fine war record, and to cast this kind of slur on a gallant body of men such as the Specials is unworthy of the hon. Lady.

Mr. Goodhart: Subsection (1) of the Clause provides that the Secretary of State may grant authority in writing to call out the force for emergency service in Northern Ireland
to any designated officer of the regular forces within the meaning of the Army Act 1955 of a rank not lower than major …


As I understand it, commanding officers of battalions will not be regular force officers seconded from the British Army, but I believe that in character they will by Regular officers within the meaning of the Army Act, 1955. I should like confirmation from the Minister that battalion commanders will have the power to call out their men, and that this power will not reside in their second-in-commands, because it would be anomalous for the second-in-command and not the commanding officer to be able to call out the men.
Secondly, in Clause 2(2), which sets out the powers to call out the force or any part of it for emergency service in Northern Ireland, I note that there is no necessity to inform Parliament at any point that the force has been called out.
Now if Parliament is not informed that any part of this force has been called out, it will, I think, be the first time in modern history that reserves have been called out without any reference at all to this House. I wonder whether the Government have any procedure in mind for informing the House at regular intervals of what is happening, or are we meant solely to discover this through Parliamentary Questions? I think some procedure would be desirable.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for his two points, but may I first deal with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). I think I can go some way in dealing with the point he has raised. Very briefly, the Government's attitude is that any member of this force must accept a basic training obligation, and we recognise that the training obligations for the new force are going to be considerably more onerous than those hitherto demanded of the Ulster Special Constabulary.
Therefore, if an individual is in a situation in which he cannot in honour accept that obligation, he may feel he ought not to attempt to join the force. But if it really is a question whether a man should go to camp in the first or the third week in June, and there are good reasons why he should change from the one on which he was going to come to another week, I think I can give the assurance that we would be reasonable

and flexible in applying the rule. But the basic obligation to accept a period of in-camp training has to remain.

Mr. Maginnis: May I point out that the question of training on Sundays will be extremely difficult for many of the new force living in the country with no help at all, and to others who, because of their conscience, will not wish to train on Sunday except in special circumstances?

Mr. Richard: I cannot say anything at all on that point which would assist the hon. Member. So far as the precise days of the week on which training has to take place is concerned, that must be a matter for the G.O.C. to decide when the force is set up.
I am sure the G.O.C. is aware of the views the hon. Member has expressed and will try to take account of them.
So far as the first point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham is concerned, it is certainly not the intention of the Government that battalion commanders who are merely members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and not members of the regular forces of the Crown should have the power to call out under Section 2(1).
The whole object of this call-out procedure is that the power to call out the force is to be exercised only by officers of the regular forces who have been so designated specifically by the Secretary of State. In the first instance, I suppose there would be a general designation to the G.O.C, Northern Ireland, and there may thereafter be other regular officers to whom the power is also designated, but they would be regular officers and not persons who would come within that category merely by virtue of their membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I realise that this may cause some anomalies but nevertheless I think it is very important, when setting up a basically unique force of this sort, that the power to call out should be strictly limited and exercised only by officers of the Regular Army authorised in that respect by the Secretary of State.
It is the Government's intention, if the whole of the force were to be called out, that Parliament should be informed. I find it almost impossible to envisage a situation in which the regiment were in


action, or had been called out for action as an entity and the House of Commons had not been informed. On the other hand, I can well envisage a situation in which part of the force were guarding some key points in rural areas and had been called out for that purpose, and in respect of such a comparatively small scale operation the Secretary of State might well feel that it was not the sort of issue upon which Parliament needed to be informed.
The important fact is that this force is now accountable to the House of Commons through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is therefore available to be questioned and challenged in the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Foot: The last point raised by the Minister is very important, because it emphasises the fact that the force will have unique powers. In the case of all other United Kingdom forces there is a requirement that the House of Commons shall be informed and, indeed, that its authority shall be obtained before action is taken. I have tabled an Amendment, which has not been selected, to remove subsection (2) precisely so that we should have some clarification from the Government. The clarification given does not go far enough.
The Bill will now go to the Lords. I do not like transacting any business in the Lords, but as it is the last stage at which anything can be done—as the Government have voted down every Amendment here there can be no Report stage—the Government should consider tabling an Amendment in the Lords to write into the Bill a further safeguard, namely that there shall be a report to the House of Commons.
It may be said that it is inconvenient to have to report to the House in cases where only a few men are being called out. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) on this question and stress that qua this unique force we are making a departure which has been found unacceptable in all our dealings with the Army throughout three centuries. This underlines the special facilities which are being accorded even under the Bill, in which this Parliament takes power over Northern Ireland, which we have not had before. It underlines the fact that the new force will exercise

rights which have not been accorded to anybody else.
If the Government were to accede to my request and to write such a provision into the Bill, it would ensure that the House of Commons would not have to go through the procedure which the hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned of the matter being raised in a roundabout fashion. It is not satisfactory for a unique power such as this to be governed solely by the discretion of the Secretary of State. I hope that it will never occur, but it is conceivable that there will be a different kind of Government in control, one whose views accord entirely with those of the Government at Stormont and who will wish to act in complete conformity with that Government.
Therefore, the Government must write into the Bill the provisions and protections which every previous Parliament has thought it necessary to write into any Measure dealing with the calling up of the Army Reserve. I would even like the noble Lords in another place to examine this matter. For example, Lord Wigg——

8.30 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Perhaps I have been rather lenient with the hon. Gentleman, but it is not in order to suggest Amendments to the Clause at this stage or in another place.

Mr. Foot: I should have thought, Mr. Gourlay, that it was possible to suggest reasons why my support of the Clause is qualified—because it contains this novel provision to which attention was drawn at an early stage in our debate. The question of parliamentary control of the calling out of the reserves is of paramount importance in British history. We are now being asked to accept a Clause which provides for the calling up of reserves with none of the protections which have normally been demanded.
The only way in which we can remedy the situation and translate the Government's good intentions into legislative form is to appeal for some action from another place. Bitter though it is for me to make any such appeal, I still think that that remedy is desirable. I should prefer the Government to put in that Clause than for others in the Lords to be interested in this matter, but, knowing the interest of my noble Friend, Lord


Wigg, in parliamentary control over the Army, I would hesitate to think that such a matter had been overlooked by him.
Even if I cannot appeal to the Government's own good nature to include this provision, perhaps they might do so to anticipate the activities of Lord Wigg.

Captain Orr: The information which my hon. Friend elicited from the Minister compels me to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Food) for the existence of the House of Lords. It will be necessary for us to look, between now and a further stage of the Bill, if there be one, at what is said about the extraordinary anomaly which he has disclosed, that a battalion commander in the new regiment will not have the power to call out even a small portion of the reserve forces to deal with something comparatively small, whereas his second-in-command will. This is a strange situation. I agree with the Minister that this is the only construction to be put on the Bill as it now stands, and this is unsatisfactory.
I am prepared to let the Clause go, but I have the same qualification as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. We are both pleading the virtues of bicarmeral Government: we are hoping for the Lords to come to our rescue.

Mr. Howie: I should like to get as far away from the House of Lords as possible and remain there for the remainder of these and other debates, but there is one part of the Clause which I do not fully understand. I accept that, at 8.30 in the morning, there is probably a great deal that I do not understand, but I notice that subsection (5) says that members of the force are required to undergo training subject to Regulations under subsection (6), which apparently relaxes these rules for
… persons of such descriptions as may be prescribed …
I wonder who are exempted from these demands.

Mr. James Ramsden: The Clause provides for the making of regulations and there are later provisions that these shall be laid before Parliament. May I seek an assurance that Parliament will have ample opportunity to debate the regulations, which are likely to be more detailed and lengthy than is usually

the case? I do not think that the Bill specifies whether it will be the affirmative or the negative procedure. The House will need plenty of time to consider the Regulations and we should welcome information from the Minister on how the debate will take place.

Mr. Richard: I am sorry to have raised the constitutional ire of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but since the Reserve Forces in Northern Ireland has been totally unaccountable to the House for the whole of its existence, it is faintly ungracious of my hon. Friend, when the Government deliberately go out of their way to make it accountable, to say that we are not making it sufficiently accountable.
I can help my hon. Friend in one respect. I undertake to see whether machinery can be devised to enable reports to be made on what the force has been doing, but I cannot give an assurance that when part of the force—a few men in a rural area in Northern Ireland—is required to react rapidly and to be called out quickly, the Secretary of State will have to ask the House for authority before it is called out for action.
But in circumstances in which the whole of the force is to be called out to meet some specific emergency, it should be possible to devise some machinery to enable the House to debate the matter. That will not allay all my hon. Friend's fears, but I hope that to a certain extent it helps him to realise that the Government want to make themselves as accountable to the House and to Parliament as possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) asked about the call-out provisions. I am sorry to disappoint him, but this was not a slip by the Government. It is the Government's deliberate intention that the call-out powers for part of the force shall be confined to members of the Regular Forces, and that means that someone who holds a Commission merely by virtue of his membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment will not be one of those persons authorised within the meaning of the Clause.

Mr. Goodhart: The battalion commanders in the first instance may well


be retired Regular officers. Will they come within the meaning of the word "designated"?

Mr. Richard: The important word is "designated". They would not be persons designated by the Secretary of State to exercise the call-out power. It is the Government's intention that that power shall be reserved to those persons whom the Secretary of State has specifically authorised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) raised the point as to who would be exempt under the provisions of subsection 6. That regulation and the relief expressed in subsection (6) cover the sort of situation which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) referred to—the individual who says that he is having great difficulty in going to camp this year for some wholly exceptional reason, or who wants to change from one week to another. Without such provision, one would not have the power to make that sort of exemption.
Subsection (6) empowers the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations governing the administration and duties of the force. It is the Government's intention—"hope" is perhaps the better expression—that these regulations will come into force as soon after 1st January next as possible so that recruiting can begin. I can certainly give an undertaking that the regulations will be laid before the House of Commons, but I cannot give an assurance that there will be time to debate them before 1st January, which is the date on which it is hoped the new force will come into effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

EXCLUDED PERSONS

Such persons who have served either in police forces or auxiliary forces and are deemed to have been guilty of misconduct shall be excluded from enrolment in the force. —[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I have been waiting for nearly 14 hours with keenness and anticipation to speak on this Clause. However, as my hon. Friend observed, I was not so much kissed by the blarney stone as bludgeoned by it in my youth, and, therefore, I merely move this Motion formally.

Mr. Hattersley: It is perhaps in keeping with the spirit of the Committee if I simply reply by entertaining it with a selection of readings from the draft regulations we propose to lay before Christmas. These comprehensive regulations will cover many of the points raised by new Clause I, but my hon. Friend will want to know at least three proposals in the regulations which will deal with exclusions in some detail. Each case I quote will signify people who will not be eligible to join the new regiment.
Regulation 326 says that those ineligible are men who have been discharged from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Special Constabulary for misconduct of any sort or with a character assessment of less than average, except where the assessment was lower solely on account of insufficient service.
Regulation 326 (F) deals with exclusions for criminal offences, and it stipulates the criminal offences which will constitute an exclusion, including theft fraud, assault, injury or indecency, among others.
Regulation 0613 states than an officer of the force cannot distribute an election address or take an active part in politics unless he has relinquished his appointment in the force.
Regulation 326 (I) lays down that it is not possible for a member of the reserve to be a member of the R.U.C. There can thus be no overlapping between the two forces.
I will not detain or weary the Committee by continuing to go through these draft regulations. Those I have referred to are four of the more important ones.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent these are similar to the Territorial Army Regulations?

Mr. Hattersley: They are virtually identical.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: We have had what in many ways have been very interesting, very emotional and very stimulating debates on the Bill. One of the strangest things that has happened during the debate has been the metamorphisis, certainly within the past few days, which seems to have overtaken my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in the minds of the Unionist Members opposite. Starting off in the early days of the Police Bill as a ragged peasant girl from the bogs to whom nobody paid any attention, my hon. Friend has now appeared as a latter-day Countess Markowitz.
It was stretching the bounds of credence a little when the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) tended to suggest that my hon. Friend had some part to play in the I.R.A campaign of 1956. At the age of nine, despite her undoubted precociousness, ability and a great deal of talent, this would have needed some little ability from my hon. Friend.

Mr. McMaster: I apologise if I have misled the House. The fact was that I was recounting the exploits of the I.R.A., starting in 1920. The hon. Lady interrupted me and said that she did not remember that; she was not born then. When I referred to the later exploits, I said that the hon. Lady might remember them, since they were within her lifetime. I was not suggesting that she had taken part in them.

Mr. McNamara: That is reassuring and it goes some way to settling the minds of my hon. Friends on that matter, because we were a little concerned about it, if only because it put my hon. Friend's achievement a little under the shadow.
I would like, however, at this stage to part company to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. In the course of the debates—indeed, since the Bill was suggested—many of us have doubted the need for the Bill and have seen it mainly as a political

decision. We have seen the position of the B Specials, as the armed wing of the Unionist Party in Ulster, as being the question that we were really discussing. We were discussing not a military situation, but a political one—how we could get the B Specials under some sort of political control. To my mind, if we had to take a decision, the decision of the Bill was the best one; namely, that we should take this force under Regular officers' command and thereby achieve control where we did not have it in the past.
During the course of the debate, although we have not had acceptance of any of our Amendments, about which we felt quite keenly, we have, nevertheless, obtained such a degree of assurance on quite a number of issues that I would say to people who are in the minority in Northern Ireland that so far as I am able to dictate to them in any way, which I do not really claim to be able to do, here they have a chance. If we claim that unless there is this change in the old B Special force all the other reforms which have been promised are useless; if we say that it is on this issue that the temper both of the Stormont policy and of the good intentions of the Westminster Government will be tested, here, above all, is the supreme opportunity to test it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not want any "Hear, hears" from hon. Members opposite. If any of them speak in support of me I shall think that we have lost the case completely.
My hon. Friend has said that if there is a choice between a rush of recruitment or a well-balanced force he will go for a well-balanced force. He has said that a special recruiting drive will take place amongst ex-members of the Regular forces resident in Northern Ireland. He has said on Second Reading and elsewhere that people whom it is thought the minority would not find acceptable will be vetted by the G.O.C. under most stringent British Army conditions.
Having had all those assurances one is entitled to say to the minority, "If you want to see any hope out of the situation in Northern Ireland you must, if nothing else, call the Government's bluff. You must, if necessary, swamp the recruiting offices with your applications. You must put forward your best candidates. If you


accept, as I accept, that there is no military threat, if you accept, as I do, that this is merely a political way of containing the B Specials, you must prove this, because otherwise the argument goes by default. Any minority in Northern Ireland has lost, and we have lost."
This is their opportunity. If they believe that the solution lies in democratic and constitutional methods, we shall end up in the situation which one of my hon. Friends spoke about earlier—that if we have this force it can show that feeling of relationship between the communities. We can get rid of the community tensions and get rid of the force, and by chance, one day, with God's blessing, we shall also get rid of the border.

8.53 a.m.

Captain Orr: I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that we have had a fascinating and interesting night. One does not want—and it would be out of order— to go over the many Amendments that have been discussed, but it has been remarkable throughout the night that support from hon. Gentlemen opposite has steadily dwindled from 36 to 25, to 18, and then to 12, in the Divisions.

Mr. McNamara: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the Government's figures?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see nothing about the size of Divisions in the Bill, and on Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for compelling me not to have to rely on my memory.
On Third Reading it is appropriate that someone from this side of the House should briefly welcome the Bill as it now stands, welcome the intention to bring the Ulster Defence Regiment into being and say that we hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will be successful in his appeal to members of the minority community to join the force.
Everybody in Ulster who really wishes to see good will between the two communities—and I believe that that applies to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland on both sides of what might be called the sectarian fence—will echo the

wish that not only will the new force get off the ground in that right way but that those who have served Ulster in the Ulster Special Constabulary, those who have faithfully served Ulster in other ways and in other forces, those who are willing faithfully to serve the security of the State—in fact all—irrespective of their religion, will now join the new force. I hope that the hon. Member's plea will be heeded, because it is essential that the new force should get going fast. It was one of the essential ingredients of the Hunt Report that the new force should get off the ground quickly.
I welcome the proposal that recruiting should start soon. I hope that by 1st April we shall have an effective force, because if we do not have a successful force, the continuation of the Ulster Special Constabulary will be essential. That was clearly set out in the agreement reached between the two Governments and underwritten by the Home Secretary perfectly plainly. Unless the new force gets off the ground and is effective and is representative of all sections of the community, we shall be left with a situation in which the Ulster Special Constabulary will have to continue.
For that reason, I warmly welcome the Bill as it now stands. I hope that the Ulster Defence Regiment will have as proud and as successful a history as its predecessor, the Ulster Special Constabulary.

8.56 a.m.

Miss Devlin: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is of the opinion that we have had a fascinating night. I did not find it fascinating. Hon. Members came to the Committee stage of the Bill with a number of serious Amendments about which I felt strongly. I have made my attitude to the Bill perfectly clear. I have not tried to mislead the House, and I have been perfectly honest and open in saying that I supported Amendments on the basis that I could not stop the Bill from becoming law and that I regarded the Amendments as a second line of defence.
I am totally opposed to the Bill. Throughout the night hon. Members have made great play with the terms "minority" and "majority", and I have been asked to urge members of the


minority in Northern Ireland to join the Ulster Defence Regiment when it is formed. From my speeches in the House, when I have repeatedly stated my political attitude, it must be well known to hon. Members that in my political dictionary the minority in Northern Ireland is not those people who choose to worship in a Catholic Church. In my terms, the majority in Northern Ireland is the working-class people of Northern Ireland and the minority is that class of society so ably represented on the Opposition benches by the members of the Ulster Unionist Party.
If I am asked with my definition of "minority" to ask the minority to join the Ulster Defence Regiment, my answer is to refuse. If I am asked to ask what the House calls the minority, that section of the majority population who happen to be Catholic working class, to join this force, I refuse, as I have said before.
I will not ask the Protestant section of the working class to join this force—not, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) saw fit to state, because I am opposed to the defence of Ulster. I am very much in favour of the defence of Ulster. To me Ulster, Northern Ireland, the Six Counties, 26 or 32 counties—a country is no more and no less than the people of that country. I am very interested in defending Ulster—that is to say, Ulster's people; all of them. I am very interested in defending the rights of the working class people of Ulster.
For generation after generation stumbling blocks have been put in the way of the working class of Ireland to divide them on the basis of Protestant and Catholic in the North of Ireland. I seriously ask hon. Members if it is the principal request to ask me to support and encourage the creation of a stumbling block consisting of 6,000 armed men once again to create division between the working-class people of Northern Ireland. There cannot be unity where there is an armed force to keep them apart. But, let us face it, that is what the Defence Regiment is for.
Time and again, despite our Amendments, hon. Members on the Government Front Bench have failed to give us clear military justification for the creation of a military force. There have been Amend-

ments tabled by my hon. Friends and by me, but none from the other side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "One from a Liberal."] I apologise to the Liberal spokesman who tabled an Amendment; but no Amendment came from the Conservative and Unionist Party. We put our Amendments down because we felt it important, and I still do, that the regiment should not be called the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, we cannot discuss now Amendments which have been defeated in Committee. We are discussing the Bill as it is.

Miss Devlin: As the Bill stands it remains the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, to which I am totally opposed. As the Bill stands, the regiment will contain 6,000 men, to which I am totally opposed. I could go one by one through the various aspects of the Bill we have discussed all night. Since we are on the Third Reading of the Bill without amendment, it must be clear that I am opposed to the various parts of the Bill I debated, and in principle, to the Bill as a whole. Therefore, far from recommending this Bill or this regiment to anyone, I must claim the right of principle to state my principal belief and advocate that no men join this force.
There is not much more I can say on this Bill because it will become law. There will be an Ulster Defence Regiment, but once again I ask the Government to consider their folly. I ask them to consider that I stand here and that, although throughout the course of the Committee stage and frequently in this House hon. Members opposite have referred to me in not the most complimentary terms, if I am nothing else I am representative of the attitude of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. I do not mean the ordinary Catholic or the ordinary Protestant, I mean the ordinary person who is interested in ordinary things. This Government have not provided anything to meet the needs of the ordinary people.
The Government should have invested their money not in a military force but in constructive assistance. Until they do this I will not support them. I will not support them in continuing the tradition of the folly of this House in passing legislation against the interests of the


people of Ireland. I will never support military intervention of British forces on Irish soil.

9.5 a.m.

Mr. Maginnis: I think that I voice the view of all hon. Members on this side of the House when I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has conducted the Bill through to this stage. It is the first occasion that I have taken part in debating a major Measure when the Bill has reached this point completely unamended, something which must have been seldom equalled in the history of this House.
The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) put up a gallant fight throughout the night in an attempt to get the Bill amended. I have been puzzled all through because, while she condemned the U.S.C., she has also condemned the Government for introducing something in its place. She was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) as a latter-day Countess Markowitz. I wish to pay her a nicer tribute. She reminds me very much of a comedienne——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a Bill and not the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin).

Mr. Maginnis: I wish the new regiment every success. Like the majority of hon. Members, I hope that members of every community in Northern Ireland will join it and help to make it a force which will be worthy of the people of Northern Ireland.

9.8 a.m.

Mr. McGuire: We must begin by remembering that the Bill was originally introduced because the members of a minority in Northern Ireland—I use the word "minority" in a somewhat different context from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—proved that justice was in many respects denied to them. They had a test of loyalty thrust down their throats, for it was said, in effect, that the Catholic minority was not subscribing fully to the constitution of Northern Ireland.
I intervened on Second Reading when my right hon. Friend the Member for

Easington (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out the fears that people had about the Bill and why he thought it would not be acceptable to the minority in Northern Ireland. He thought that the Catholics would not co-operate to make the Measure a success. I intervened to try to put him right, and I referred to Cardinal Conway, the Cardinal Primate of all Ireland.
A fetish has been made by the Unionists of loyalty towards Northern Ireland. The cardinal has explained on behalf of the Catholics that they have always given recognition to the constitution of Northern Ireland, they have been denied many of the benefits of the constitution of Northern Ireland but if a test of loyalty depended upon the abandonment of the noble conception of a united Ireland, in the eyes of the Unionists they were in a treacherous position. I am in exactly that position, as are many of my hon. Friends. They look forward to the time, realising that it will be a long way ahead, when we have a United Ireland.
Will the Bill, with its title and the apparatus for initiating the first section of the Ulster Defence Regiment, induce Catholics to play their full part? I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I hope and trust that in spite of what has been put in the way of Catholics by the pact between my Government and the Stormont Government, the selection of the title—

Mr. Speaker: I recollect that the title was discussed as an Amendment in Committee.

Mr. McGuire: I stand corrected. The title will be the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to arrive at a balanced community in the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is charged with part of the defence of Northern Ireland.
The Hunt Committee, in spite of feeling that fears are much exaggerated and probably have no reality, recognised that there was a psychological need for this force. I am questioning whether the title of the Ulster Defence Regiment will persuade Catholics to play their full part, and, in spite of the title, and in spite of the concession that certain commandants of the B Specials will go over to the new regiment, I hope that the Catholics


of Northern Ireland will play their full part.
Certain people in Northern Ireland, particularly the backlash section desire the title and the way of selection to thwart Catholics and prevent them coming forward, and thus reinforce the view that Catholics are basically disloyal. On Second Reading the Secretary of State for Defence said—and I am paraphrasing his words—that there was no higher demonstrable form of loyalty to the Crown than joining the British Armed Forces, and the Catholics provide 50 percent. of the Northern Irish defence forces. The charge of disloyalty could not be maintained against them regarding then attitude to the B Specials. It was an offence to them—the words stank in their nostrils—not merely that they were not encouraged to join, but that it was deliberately intended that they should not join.
We have come a long way from that situation. I believe that if my coreligionists in Northern Ireland want to get rid once and for all of any paramilitary force, the best way in which they can demonstrate their feelings is to join the new force. I believe that there is no threat, but a concession has been made on psychological grounds.
When the House handed over the six counties of the ancient province of Ulster to what became known as the Northern Ireland Government, the sovereign Parliament at Westminster relinquished real power. The actions of the people who administered power on our behalf in Northern Ireland were not subjected to close scrutiny in this House. This Bill, with all its imperfections, has built-in safeguards so that we shall never again fall into the trap of not scrutinising very closely what is going on in Northern Ireland. This has been our fault. I can well remember trying to catch the Speaker's eye and being ruled out of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now being ruled out of order. He must talk about the Bill.

Mr. McGuire: I am about to sit down. All I will say is that I welcome the abolition of that convention and look forward to giving closer scrutiny in the future to what is going on in Northern Ireland.

9.17 a.m.

Mr. McMaster: I will not detain the House long at this late hour. I wish to say only a few words. Too much play has been made about Unionists and Catholics—and I mean, of course, Roman Catholics. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) admitted to the House that she was opposing the Bill not on behalf of the Catholics as a whole, but rather on behalf of a group or society which she represented—that is to say, a left-wing Socialist minority——

Mr. McNamara: In view of the absence of my hon. Friend, it is surely incorrect for the hon. Gentleman to misquote her words. He may feel that she represents that particular group, but that was not what she claimed to represent. The hon. Gentleman should make that clear.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry the hon. Lady has not seen fit to stay to the end of the debate. However, she did try to draw a red herring across the debate by equating the Unionist Party with the upper class. That is wrong. The Unionist Party in Ulster represents all classes. I am proud to represent all classes of workmen in Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. No such distinction is recognised in Northern Ireland.
To return to the Bill, I should like to welcome it and look forward to the future. I hope all classes and members of all religions will join in seeing that the Bill works. I look forward to the time in Northern Ireland when nobody asks to what religion one belongs.
The need for the Bill was clearly stated in the Hunt Report, which dealt with the history of the Irish Republican Army and the insurrections and atrocities in Northern Ireland. The report concluded in paragraphs 27 and 28 that though the main danger in Northern Ireland was more likely to be ill will and discontent in the streets, one could never be sure that there would not be an attack from outside.
It is the duty of the Government to provide for the security of the State. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has a land barrier and is likely to be subject to further attacks. It is necessary as long as there is the possibility of attack that the force should be formed and remain in existence to protect our border.
I sincerely hope that members of all classes and religions will come forward and join the force so that we can look forward to a future in Northern Ireland in which we can forget the bitterness and hatred which has been revived in past months and has so upset our progress as a proud and important part of the United Kingdom.

9.20 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I know that hon. Members who are still here have been here for a long time. Therefore, they will wish to depart as soon as possible. I apologise for delaying them a little longer, but it is necessary, at the end of such a debate as this, for some of those who have participated to underline the reasons why they have done so and to express their conclusions on the Bill.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I understand some of the difficulties with which he may have had to contend throughout the night, and I congratulate him on the good temper that he has shown. It must have been more irritating for him than for us.
I think that I speak for other hon. Members on this side who have participated in the debate in saying that I make no apology for having scrutinised the Bill with the care that we have. Here I echo partly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). One of the few protections that we have for the situation in Northern Ireland and one of the only reasons why we can hope for something better in future than we have had in the recent past is the fact that it is now established that this House will scrutinise Irish affairs very much more carefully in future.
The Minister rebuked me for quibbling —I think he actually said for questioning the provision—about the calling up of the reserves. He said that it was ungracious of me, when we were getting such a big extension to our authority over the force, to quarrel because we had not got the whole lot. This is merely a contrast of the way that we have dealt with Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the country. I do not think that he should have used the word "ungracious". I do not complain about it, because it was a mild rebuke. However, I think that he should have put it the other way. He should

have talked to hon. Gentlemen opposite and reminded them that this House and this Government are being ungracious to the Government in Stormont and to the Parliament in Northern Ireland by providing them with a loophole which would not be available for forces in this country. I think that the loophole should be closed, and I still hope that it will be closed. I hope that the matter will be remedied, even though we have to call in Beelzebub to cast out Beelzebub. I am referring to the House of Lords.
I do not take the view stated by some hon. Members and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who talks as though the conclusion of the Bill is to end in a mood of good will and that all we have to do is to go home singing hallelujah. That is not the situation.
My misgivings about the Bill are not so different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). It is not a much better Bill than it was on Second Reading. The only major concession—and I do not suppose that my hon. Friend would describe it as a concession—was a statement of what my hon. Friend considered to be the nature of the Bill all along. Nobody could state the case with greater skill than my hon. Friend. Everybody knows that his skill in this House is enormous, and he put the case as well as it could be put.
My hon. Friend argued that the Government all along had wished to see an entirely different composition of the force from that which it had before. I am sure that my hon. Friend is sincere in that desire. I am sure that it is the Government's desire to make a different kind of force. I have not the slightest doubt about their desire for that; but I do not believe that they have provided in the Bill the means to achieve it. If they had accepted some of our Amendments they would have moved much further in the direction of getting a Bill which could be acceptable in Northern Ireland. But, as it is, we are still faced with a Bill which has the wrong name, and a force that is going to be too large, and its composition is still highly uncertain and problematical.
Indeed, the composition of the force does not depend on the Government


Front Bench, or even on hon. Members in Stormont. They have to appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to see whether they can get the kind of force that they want, and she is not prepared to say that she will invite people to join the force. I can understand her feelings. If the Government wanted my hon. Friend and others to appeal to the Catholic minority to join the force, they should have been prepared to make much bigger concessions. They should have been prepared to go much further. I know the arguments. One argument is that they would stir up the backlash. That is the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. She says that it is the blackmail from the backlash that has stopped a better Bill from being produced, and I do not see how anybody can deny that.
Down, South is fixed in my mind because of the debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) insists upon the terms of the Bill, and it was notable that at the end of the debate he came back to where he was at the beginning and spoke as though the whole situation was still absolutely governed, without any qualification, by the agreement that was reached between the Stormont Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of this country in their declaration. In my opinion, that declaration is not sufficient to provide for the future of Ireland. It is not sufficient to provide peace in Northern Ireland, because that declaration still leaves with Stormont much greater authority than it is capable of exercising.

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that his Government could have broken an agreement freely entered into?

Mr. Foot: I cannot go over the whole history of the proceedings, I should be out of order if I were to do so. I can understand the Government making an agreement with the Government of Stormont during a critical and difficult situation—I do not blame the Government for that—but they then proceeded to translate that agreement partly into the Bill. I am complaining that the translation of the compact into the Bill has been far too greatly influenced by pressure from Stormont, and we have

had one example after another of that. I cannot believe that if the Government had started fresh to decide what sort of force should be set up by the Bill they would have chosen the title that they did, or the size that they did, or that they would not have been able to insist on much more stringent provisions about the change in the composition.
I have on my side the bulk of the Hunt Committee recommendations. We have abandoned three or four major recommendations of that committee about the size of the force and about the abandoning of the Special Powers Act. We have not got that yet. We are promised it. We are told that eventually Stormont will abolish it, but we have been told that for 50 years, and I shall believe it only when I see it.
The best that I can extract from the situation, and the best that we can say to people in Ireland, the only thing that we can say to the minority in Ireland who have been so grossly misused over the years, is that whereas the authority of Westminster was distant and very difficult to invoke, and could only be invoked by convulsions on the streets which brought the troops there, now there is easier access to Westminster. I hope that that access will continue, and that part of it will be through my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster.
In my opinion it is very important for the development of democracy in the United Kingdom—both this country and Ireland—that this House should constantly listen to what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not take the debate as wide as that.

Mr. Foot: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is extremely important that this House should recognise—and that the people of Ireland should recognise—that whatever deficiencies they may see in the Bill they now have an access to this House which they did not have before, and that they will continue to exercise, week by week and month by month, through the voice of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is repeating what I told him to keep away from. We are discussing the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I conclude by saying that the cause of the Bill was the threat of


pogroms in this country such as had not been threatened for generations. It was only the intervention of the British Army which prevented that. The Bill is partly justified in terms of alleviating that situation. I understand the purpose of the Government. But I wish they had listened more carefully to those hon. Members on this side who have had much to say on Northern Ireland. Everybody wishes that the Government could have made this a better Bill, with a much better chance of accomplishing the work that they want to see accomplished, but which will be accomplished only when hon. Members exercise sufficient viligance to see that Irish affairs are investigated to the greatest possible degree in the months ahead.

9.32 a.m.

Mr. Goodhart: I hope that after the Bill is passed the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment never have an opportunity to distinguish themselves in the field. But if the security situation in Northern Ireland is such that the regiment has to be called out, I hope that after our debates a well-balanced and well-led regiment will show that devotion to duty which we have come to expect in the military field from the soldiers of Northren Ireland.

9.33 a.m.

Mr. Richard: There is one thing that we can say about the Bill on Third Reading: it has had a long and exhaustive examination. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). As one of those who have sat through the whole debate since seven o'clock last night I can say that it is not often that one has an all-night sitting and feels at the end of it that it has been of some assistance and worth while. The debates throughout the night and the way in which the whole Bill has emerged from Committee, together with the speeches made and the sentiments expressed—not exclusively from the back benches—have improved the position.
The Government recognise the very deep feelings of those who have moved Amendments and taken part in the debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) clearly has deep and passionate feelings about her own country—about its history and traditions and the way in which its people have

been treated in the past. This I understand and appreciate.
But I must tell the hon. Lady and a number of other hon. Members who may feel a similar sentiment that the situation today is unique in respect of Northern Ireland. This is probably the first time since 1922 that the situation in Northern Ireland—the very existence of Northern Ireland itself—is at a turning point. I do not believe that in the 48 years or thereabouts since Northern Ireland came into existence as a constitutional entity it has had so much upheaval in such a short time, or that the House has been so concerned with its affairs.
The main fear that is still clearly there is that the Ulster Defence Regiment is merely the Ulster Special Constabulary under another name, that what will happen is that it will be the same people, doing the same jobs, recruited in the same way, officered by the same people, and confined to the same religion.
That is the fear which has emerged not only from this debate, but in the last week or so from organisations in Northern Ireland itself. I think these fears are unjustified. I think these fears can be allayed, should be allayed and will be allayed provided that three things are recognised.
Originally—quite a long time ago it now seems, and perhaps unwisely in the course of one of the Amendments to this Bill—I tried to list about 12 points. Eventually I subsided under the weight of opposition to the points I was going to make. But perhaps I can now at least make three of them, and emphasise that the force as it will emerge when it is recruited and is operational, will be unique in three very definite and distinct ways and will be totally different from the Ulster Special Constabulary which it will replace.
Firstly, the new force will cease to be what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) somewhat extravagantly described as a private army. It will become part of the Regular forces, subject to military law and capable of being called out only by the regular forces themselves. I do beg my hon. Friend not to under-emphasise the importance of that advance—that it is now integrated into the Regular forces of the Crown.
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the new force will cease to be


a sectarian force only. The pace of recruiting and the procedures of recruiting, to what is frankly an unprecedented extent, have been quite deliberately chosen by the Government in order to provide for a well-balanced force. Indeed safeguards are built into the Bill and into the force to ensure that the treatment of both Catholics and Protestants is equal. Again, I do not think my hon. Friends who have doubts and criticisms about this Bill would doubt for one moment that if that can be achieved, then it is indeed a major advance as far as the affairs of Northern Ireland are concerned.
The third point, nd I think this is one which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale appreciates, is that for the first time since 1922 the size, the administration, the organisation and the use to which this force is to be put will be subject to debate, questioning and scrutiny in the House of Commons.
I am bound to say to my hon. Friends that when one puts these advantages and these achievements on the one side of the balance sheet, and on the other side one puts the criticisms one has heard in the debate on the Bill—namely, that the name is wrong and that the force is too high— the overwhelming advantages for Northern Ireland come down very much in favour of the Bill.
I think the final word I would say on the Bill can best be summed up in words used by Lord Hunt:
There is one final point; it is perhaps the most important of all those which we have to make. We believe that the recommendations in this report will call for outstanding qualities of leadership to carry them out. There must be a conviction of the need for the changes and a due sense of urgency. There must also be an ability to appreciate the problems of Northern Ireland and the sensitivities of its people combined with a determination to chart a course towards the future, undeflected by the events of the past.
I think those words sum up the Government's attitude to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SUPPLY

DEFENCE (ARMY) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1969–70

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, for expenditure on the Ulster Defence Regiment (to a number not exceeding 6,000 all ranks) beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, as set out in House of Commons Paper 26.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

A5 TRUNK ROAD (TAMWORTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

9.40 a.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: At this very late hour of the morning, I am grateful for an opportunity to raise in Parliament a matter which is causing serious concern and anger among many of my constituents—concern and anger which I fully share. The problem has national as well as local consequences. I refer to the notorious bottleneck on the A5 trunk road in the borough of Tam-worth in my constituency.
The A5—the old Roman Watling Street—has long been a major artery in the country's road system. New motorways have been built, but the A5 still carries a substantial amount of traffic. I believe that this situation will continue for many years, particularly in the West Midlands, because the A5, starting in the West Midlands round about Rugby, skirting important towns like Nuneaton and Tamworth, and running through Brownhills and Cannock and on to Wales, carries very heavy commercial traffic on this section of its route. Undoubtedly the worst constriction on the whole of the A5, and certainly on the whole of the heavily trafficked part, is in the borough of Tamworth.
For much of its length now, due to improvements over the past few years, the A5 is dual carriageway, or at least three-lane carriageway. Where it comes into Tamworth, from a dual carriageway section it suddenly narrows down to a modest road whose dimensions at the


bottom of Quarry Hill in the borough of Tamworth are only 19 ft. 11 in. wide with a flanking footpath 4 ft. wide. Its width then varies in the borough from under 20 ft. to a maximum of 24 ft. 8 in. I would guess that the average width throughout this section is about 21 ft. This is for a major trunk road carrying the very heaviest road vehicles day and night.
On the subject of widths, I understand that the borough of Tamworth is currently, in all the minor roads it is building on its housing estates, providing widths of 24 ft. as an absolute standard. These roads normally carry only the private cars of the residents of the estates and vehicles servicing the estates.
In May of this year the Minister of Transport told me, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that traffic censuses had revealed that in 1961 the vehicle per hour loading on the A5 in the borough of Tamworth was 664. By 1965 this figure had risen to 949 vehicles per hour in a 16-hour day—a remarkable increase. I guess that there has been a further considerable increase since 1965. All too often now the traffic is at a complete standstill, because the road has reached capacity. Therefore, if the road is at capacity and the traffic has come to a standstill, it is difficult to see how the number of vehicles per hour can increase further.
Associated with these problems out not strictly speaking within the borough, or within my constituency, is a busy length of the A5 immediately north of the canal, the notorious Fazeley Roundabout. This is causing concern to the rural district council within whose area the roundabout is situated and also to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), within whose constituency it lies. I frequently have to use this A5 to reach various parts of my large constituency. Even as late as 11 o'clock in the morning it has taken me between 35 and 45 minutes to traverse 1½ miles on this section, and in the rush hour the position can get desperate. If a vehicle breaks down, particularly on the 19 ft. 11 ins. section, the position is serious. The Minister will know, from my frequent correspondence with him, about the position of the traffic lights at the cross roads at Two Gates. They need constant repairs

because of the inadequacies of the road and the heavy traffic.
Lining the A5 are many important factories, and the workpeople find it very difficult to be punctual. The journey times for two or three miles can vary between seven minutes and up to an hour. The managing director of the Reliant Motor Company, a successful all-British firm, wrote to me on 30th June. He said:
This road is, of course, terribly congested at the best of times and presents a real problem for staff, for employees, for transport delivering and collecting from our factory, and for the many visitors that we have each day. The problem becomes many times worse whenever there is the slightest obstruction on the road within three or four miles of the works —queues causing anything up to an hour's delay very quickly form.
These remarks have been echoed and re-echoed by many other business people with interests alongside the A5, and by local councils, local government officials and local residents. In addition, the indecision over the A5 and the route of a diversion or by-pass has certainly affected the planning and expansion of the Reliant factory and others lining this road, and has caused real hardship to many of my constituents because of planning blight and problems relating to improvement grants for houses lining the road.
This situation would be bad enough if the borough of Tamworth was static, but it is not. It is expanding very rapidly. It is working in close liaison with Birmingham to accommodate 30,000 additional people over the next decade as part of the Birmingham overspill programme. Indeed, many of these estates along the A5 are now being built and people are moving in. The Ministry of Housing is backing this scheme and one of the Ministers recently visited the town to see for himself what was going on.
This scheme and the whole town are threatened with complete paralysis unless something is done quickly to cope with the problems of the A5. The problem has a long and frustrating history and has occupied many of my predeccessors—Mr. Moss, Mr. Matthews and the late Christopher Rowland. On 24th August, 1966, the Private Secretary at the Ministry of Housing wrote to the late Christopher Rowland about a new by-pass in the following terms:
… there is a good chance that an announcement can be made within a month or two


so that everyone concerned will know what the proposals are and how they will be affected by them. … These things take time. But it should not be long now.
Well, it has been a long time, and although there is now a line for the diversion of the A5 in some of the plans for the new town expansion of Tamworth, my information is that the Ministry will give no decision either on this future line or on the present line of the A5 until traffic flows on to and from the proposed M1-M5 motorway are known—that is, in five or six years. I hope that this is denied, because the town will have ground to a standstill long before then.
The M1-M5 motorway will form part of the eastern by-pass of the town and is scheduled for 1971. There have been rumours that this has been put back, and I hope that these can be denied. But I do not believe that this motorway route from Nottingham to Bromsgrove will materially affect the A5 traffic. There is another motorway under construction, also passing through my constituency. This is the M1-M6 Midlands motorway link due to open in 1971.
The Ministry has argued that this will ease the traffic flow. A letter from the Divisional Road Engineer in June to the Borough Engineer and Surveyor of Tamworth Borough Council said that with the further consideration being given to the proposed road pattern in the expanded borough of Tamworth,
It is expected that when the Midland Links motorway is completed in the early 1970s, the A5 trunk road will be relieved of a fair proportion of the traffic which it is at present carrying.
There are two answers to that. First, there has been extensive reconstruction of the A5 on both sides of Tamworth. As recently as 13th October, the Minister gave me details of the Wall by-pass to the north of Tamworth, built in 1966–67, the widening at Dorden to Wilnecote, 1967, and extensive dualling on the South Leicestershire section of the A5 to the south of Tamworth. This is one reason why I do not believe that the Midlands motorway link argument is effective. If all this money has been spent in road construction and improving the A5, why has Tamworth been left out?
I believe that there is a second and very cogent reason. This was outlined in a letter from the Ministry of Transport

to a gentleman living in Walsall and Brownhills who had been objecting to a compulsory purchase order for A5 improvements in Brownhills. The letter, dated 12th September, 1968, said:
The Ministry's engineer said that the Weedon—Atherstone—Brownhills Trunk Road (A5) from Freeth Canal Bridge to the junction with A452 urgently required improvement. There was at present a single carriageway with an average width of 22 ft. which was greatly overloaded. A traffic census in 1965 recorded a flow of 4,781 vehicles in 16 hours, 19·5 per cent, were heavy goods vehicles. This represented a fivefold increase in traffic since 1954, and the flow was now of a magnitude such that the least interruption or obstruction would cause congestion and prolong delays, and there was a serious danger of accidents. Some relief might be expected when a further extension of the M6 Motorway was completed by 1971–72, but experience showed that any such relief was likely to be offset by normal growth within a few years.
All these remarks apply to a little further up the A5. The average width at Tamworth is less than 22 feet. The average flow on this section in Brownhills was already exceeded by nearly 3,000 vehicles in the 1965 census in Tamworth. If for these reasons it was vital to improve the A5 at Brownhills, it is that much more vital to improve it at Tamworth where the width is narrower and the vehicle load is heavier. What is sauce for the Brownhills goose is surely sauce for the Tamworth gander.
The question of the transportation survey which is covering Tamworth and other Staffordshire towns and cities has been called in aid as an excuse for delay. Tamworth is near Lichfield, which had had three major trunk road schemes in the last twelve years. Good luck to Lichfield, but its traffic problem does not approach Tamworth's.
The problem is a grim one. It has dragged on for far too long under successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour. I hope that now action can be taken. I want to put several constructive points to the hon. Gentleman. The long term solution is a by-pass or diversion and we want the line settled completely and a date for starting. I hope that an early date will be fixed. I believe that this by-pass or diversion should be a Ministry responsibility, since it will be a trunk road. Again, there has been dispute between the Ministry and the Staffordshire County Council as to whose responsibility it will be.
The short term solution is to carry out some improvements to the existing A5 by widening or realignment. The Ministry has owned 4,552 Sq yards adjacent to the road in the Borough since 1946 and has purchased an additional 5,302 sq. yards since 1960.
The Minister told me on 2nd May that all this land was for road improvements. May I suggest that this land be used for these improvements as soon as possible? I beg the Minister not to underestimate the strong and passionate feelings held by my constituents about this appalling cart track which is masquerading as a trunk road. All of us concerned with Tamworth's growth and expansion want it to succeed. All of us who are aware of Birmingham's housing problems are proud of the part that Tamworth is playing to solve them by serving as an overspill town in this great and imaginative scheme to take more than 30,000 Birmingham people within the next decade.
But all our hopes and plans for the future will be of no avail unless urgent and effective action is taken to get the traffic moving in Tamworth. If the Minister wishes to come and see for himself, we can arrange it, but he should set aside plenty of time, for he will spend most of the day sitting in a traffic jam.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some hope that his Department appreciates our problems and is determined with us to solve them at an early date.

9.56 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): Highway and town development interests many of us, and it is useful that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) has ventilated this morning some of the problems which, inevitably arise.
Tamworth is an expanding town designated under the Town Development Act, 1952, to receive overspill from Birmingham. It is well situated with good communications. The overspill scheme is one of the most promising in the West Midlands, and it will make a substantial contribution towards meeting the enormous housing needs of the Birmingham conurbation.
Originally the proposed road network in what might be called "Greater Tamworth" was not acceptable to my right hon. Friend because it was not supported by adequate traffic information. It included two trunk roads; an A5 diversion to be constructed as a spine road to the development area and an eastern by-pass which had been accepted by the Ministry before the expansion was planned.
In May, 1966, Staffordshire County Council arranged for a survey to be made of the Stafford, Cannock, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley area. The objectives of the survey were:
First, to determine the points in the existing road network which will become congested, and when this will occur; secondly, to test future road layout and if necessary suggest changes; thirdly, to consider special central area requirements such as parking; fourthly, to determine a programme of construction dates.
The years to be treated were the existing situation, 1981 and the year 2001. The survey was due to be furnished in July, 1968.
But the survey report unfortunately is not yet available. In the meantime, land purchase for expansion has been frustrated until the town map could be approved. My Department has agreed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Staffordshire County Council that a tentative primary road network should be shown on the plan which could subsequently be modified if necessary when the results of the survey were known. There was, however, one point of controversy. Staffordshire wished the diversion of the A5 to be shown as a trunk road; the Ministry of Transport could not agree. After Ministerial discussions and correspondence, the town map was approved on 6th November, this year but without showing the A5 diversion as a trunk road.
It may help the hon. Member if I next explain the arguments about this. If the road were trunk, all the responsibility for it, including full financial liability for construction, improvement and maintenance, would rest with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport. If it were a principal road, it would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, though the Minister would pay


75 per cent. of the cost of construction and improvement.
The Staffordshire County Council has pressed for trunk status for the spine road, although this would remove the control and responsibility from its hands to those of the central Government. No doubt it has its financial considerations in mind. I do not blame it for that, but we have to exercise our power to give trunk status with restraint and responsibility. Having in mind the statutory description of trunk roads as
'the national system of routes for through traffic
we see two main reasons why we cannot accept the spine road as a trunk road.
I repeat the information the hon. Gentleman has already received from my divisional road engineer. First, the Midland link section of M6 is due to be opened in 1971. The through traffic function of the corresponding section of A5 will therefore have been transferred to the motorway before the new spine road is built. None of A5 in the vicinity of Tamworth will then deserve trunk status, so there would be no justification for building as a trunk road a section on a new alignment.
Second, the main function of the new road, as we see it, will be to serve as a primary distributor for part of the new overspill development. The spine road will be specifically designed to cater predominantly for journeys that have their origin or destruction—or both—in its own locality. Traffic making such journeys cannot be regarded as through traffic. In towns "through traffic" is defined as traffic which has both its origin and its destination outside the urban area.
It is my right hon. Friend's view that either of these reasons alone would be sufficient to justify principal rather than trunk status. Moreover, I should stress that the same policy on trunk status is being applied elsewhere in the country.
I should also emphasise that this decision does not mean that my Department thinks the worse of the proposals for Tamworth. We did not question the proposed existence of the road. And we are co-operating very closely indeed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

on the whole question of the development of Tamworth.
It will no doubt be more cheering for the Hon. Member to be told that our Midland Road Construction Unit are preparing plans for a new high standard road linking the Ml near Nottingham to the M5 south of Birmingham. This road which it is expected will pass fairly close to the east of Tamworth will provide an effective by-pass for Tamworth. The former by-pass line has therefore been incorporated into the town road network on the new plan, and has been abandoned as a trunk road proposal.
The hon. Member referred to blight. Only one property on the line of A5 has been purchased. This is at Fazeley. It would certainly not enable the Ministry to embark on a continuous widening scheme.
The Town and Country Planning Acts provide a remedy for certain owner-occupiers and mortgagees of property affected by planning blight, who may be unable to sell their property except at a price substantially lower than they might reasonably expect because of the publication of a scheme affecting the property. In specified circumstances the appropriate authority can be required to purchase the property at an unblighted price. One of these circumstances is that the land is indicated in a town map as land on which a highway is proposed to be constructed or land included in a highway as proposed to be improved or altered.
A5 in the Borough of Tamworth is about two miles of straight but undulating single two-lane carriageway. The road is necessarily narrower where it passes through the villages at Two Gates and Wilnecote.
We have been well aware of the conditions on this trunk road for many years. There is no doubt that it is inadequate for the heavy and continuous traffic which it now carries. Apart from its normal trunk road load it serves also for M1 and M6 through traffic and carries an exceptionally large number of lorries.
Our problem, unfortunately, as always, is one of priorities. As the Hon. Member is aware, the size of our road programme is limited by the many other claims on resources. Schemes take


several years to reach fruition and we have to work out our programmes and priorities with the greatest possible care, remembering that it is possible to spend only so much money in any given year.
When preparing road programmes, a particular area can rarely be considered in isolation. The motorway link between Ml and M6 is due to be completed in 1971 and when it is open we expect much of the traffic now on the A5 to use it. This being so, we feel that we cannot undertake major reconstruction work on the A5 at Tamworth as things stand. The hon. Member, I know, is reluctant to agree to this proposition but we have to live with the facts of life. Motorways are very expensive and we have to be very careful when we consider whether or not our limited financial resources should be sunk in the improvement of a road, which in less than two years time can be expected to carry far less traffic than it does now. I referred a moment ago to the large numbers of lorries on A5. This is just the kind of traffic which one would expect to transfer to the motorway.
However, this does not mean that we are ignoring the situation which now exists. Dual carriageways were provided in 1967 from Dordon to Quarry Hill but other major reconstructions on this length of the A5 have not been undertaken in the past mainly because it would be very expensive to acquire and demolish surrounding properties.
Nevertheless, quite a number of short term measures have been implemented to improve traffic conditions on the A5. Automatic traffic signals have been set up this year at Mile Oak, some distance West

of Fazeley; a pedestrian crossing has been installed just West of Hockley Road, and a footpath has been undertaken between Two Gates and Hockley Road,A No Waiting Order is in force on the road between Wilnecote Station Bridge and Valley Lane, a distance of approximately 475 yards, and a draft Order is under consideration to extend this through the whole length of the villages of Two Gates and Wilnecote. The imposition of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is also being considered on Quarry Hill, Wilnecote, from the end of the dual carriageways in Warwickshire to the start of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit at Stoneydelph Lane. Additionally, traffic management schemes will be examined and implemented where they show promise of relief to local residents or benefit to the area as a whole.
In brief, it is expected that the Midland Link motorways will remove a large part of the trunk road traffic from the A5 when they come into use sometime in 1971 and, as an additional bonus, that the Spine Road as part of the planned network for the area will take off much of the purely local traffic as well.
When the position becomes clearer as a consequence of the many measures which I have outlined, it will then be possible to judge what other improvements might be needed. We shall naturally keep the situation under careful review, and if further improvements are proved to be necessary, we shall undertake them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.